On Wed, 2022-11-09 at 13:21 +0000, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2022-11-09 12:00:29 +0000 (+0000), Sean Mooney wrote: [...]
if we did that then you could delvier bugfix z relases with select backports.
moving back to release with intermediary is proably fine but ohter then process restrictions i dont think there is anythign that woudl prevent an independed released compentent form doing backports if they really wanted too. [...]
It's not a problem of logistics, but rather policy. Independently released projects are intended to be treated like other external dependencies which are completely disconnected from our coordinated cycle. Yes they could still add "stable" branches and backport fixes to those and tag point releases from them, but as with external dependencies we intentionally keep their versions frozen in our central constraints list, so those backports don't actually get the same degree of integration testing as cycle-with-intermediary projects do. And if you keep unwinding the policy restrictions in order to make independent projects behave more like cycle-based projects, addressing the issues each of those policies is meant to mitigate, you eventually end up at something very much like cycle-with-intermediary anyway.
yep i was not objecting to the mvoe but to me the reall delta between cycle-with-intermediary and independent is just that 1 there will be at least one release per upstream cycle and 2 there will be a stable barnch created from the final release of the cycle that may recive backport in the future if as a team we decied the backport is warented. cycle-with-intermediary shoudl be the default choice i think for most projects/repos