[TYPO3-core] Changing the release cycle

[François Suter]

Hi all,

Some of you will maybe complain that I am single-minded, here I go again 
about the topic of the release cycle. Well, bear with me, please.

I think the six-month release cycle is partly responsible for our 
current problems. Is has put a lot of stress on development, as the 
window between kick-off and feature freeze is so short. Obviously this 
has the advantage of bringing about new features more quickly. That's 
why it was decided to adopt such a rhythm in the first place.

However it makes pretty hard to do bold and complicated changes, the TCA 
refactoring proposed by Christian being a good example.

Furthermore it puts a lot of stress on agencies, who have clearly 
clamored for a new LTS version.

It is also hard on extension developers. It's no small task to verify 
your extensions every six months, even if you maintain them regularly 
and thus should face few surprises.

I wish we would finally switch to a minor/major release development 
process. Benni set down the goal of general improvements for 6.1. This 
fits fine with stabilizing 6.0, which was a major and not so smooth 
release (we badly needed 6.0.1 and 6.0.2). Although still not announced 
officially, a consensus was reached to make 6.2 the next LTS version. In 
such a light, we should avoid important changes along the 6.x branch, so 
that we can adapt to 6.0 and then sail smoothly to 6.2. This version 
would not only be LTS but also the last of the 6.x branch.

In parallel, we would start working on 7.0, which could accommodate 
larger changes. A big argument against this has always been the problem 
of manpower and of developers maybe losing interest in the previous 
branch (6.x in this case). I think this is not a true issue. With the 
six-month release cycle we already have our hands full or versions to 
maintain. Furthermore if we assume that 6.x release are only minor ones, 
then they indeed require less manpower. Any feature developed for 7.0 
and which is considered minor, can simply be backported to the 6.x 
development.

I hope this proposal will not be brushed away too easily and at least 
foster some discussion on the release cycle, which I find frankly 
unbearable.

Cheers

-- 

Francois Suter
Cobweb Development Sarl - http://www.cobweb.ch