Post #917407
2023-10-26 10:36 UTC
Replies (5)
-
@carlton@fosstodon.org 2023-10-26 10:38
@djangochat @nessita @wsvincent It’s just an idea to stimulate your thought, rather than an actual suggestion, but… Why CalVer? Well, we don’t really do Major versions, 5.0 could just have well have been 4.3, and Django release schedule IS timebased… That I ❤️ CalVer is entirely incidental 😜
-
@sarahboyce@mastodon.social 2023-10-26 10:43
@carlton @djangochat @nessita @wsvincent (🪱 can of worms warning) do we need to implement an LTS process? I find Django upgrades very painless. Maybe enough trust is built that they are no longer required?
-
@adamchainz@fosstodon.org 2023-10-26 10:54
@carlton @djangochat @nessita @wsvincent I think it would make more sense if the LTS was the X.0. Having it as the .2 does seem like the .0 and .1 releases are less stable/refined, like the Ubuntu non-LTS releases, and the .2 is the dependable one. Then .0 may make big breaking changes again. Making the .0 LTS might reverse that notion. I’m also not against considering CalVer but it’s a hard-to-reverse decision and does mean we don’t get any “big new version number” hype.
-
@kevinrenskers@hachyderm.io 2023-10-26 11:31
@carlton why not use actual semver? Why does the .2 version have to be the LTS one? Why have LTS at all?
-
@cbgrey@mastodon.social 2023-10-28 12:11
@carlton @djangochat @nessita @wsvincent I'm a fan of CalVer as well so if I were choosing, that's what I would pick. Incrementing the year gives a natural feeling of advancement without making it feel like every cycle needs a big, momentous, breaking change. Where do I vote? 😃