[phobos] Decision on length of deprecation cycle

[Jonathan M Davis]

On 2011-05-25 17:16, Michel Fortin wrote:
> Le 2011-05-25 à 18:52, Jonathan M Davis a écrit :
> > So, I'd suggest putting the date that the function will move to the next
> > phase in the message instead of when it entered its current phase (or
> > both dates), and we should try and adjust those dates just prior to a
> > release so that they more or less coincide with actual releases. Then we
> > can guarantee that the function will stay in that phase until at least
> > that date (with the possible exception of moving it forward a week or so
> > early if the date is right after a release). I can manage adjusting the
> > dates and moving stuff from phase to phase if need be.
> 
> Or just don't give a full date:
> 
> "scheduled for deprecation in November 2011."
> 
> The month should be enough. There's about one release per month.

Actually, I was just looking at the changelog to see how often releases really 
are and the last few have been 2 or 3 months apart whereas around a year ago, 
we were getting them around every month or so. So, the frequency of releases 
seems to have slowed down. From a planning perspective, it would be nice if we 
were actually consistent about it, though obviously it's best to only release 
when we're ready to. It might be good to specifically try for monthly or bi-
monthly releases at around the same time of month each time and thus make them 
more consistent.

Regardless, stating a particular month seems like a good idea. It could be 
something like,

"As of phobos 2.054, scheduled for deprecation in November 2011"

It would clearly indicate when the change was made (without having to worry 
about when the exact date of 2.054) and the approximate time that the item 
will be deprecated. It would be easier to pick the actual deprecation month 
though if we were more consistent with our releases. I don't know what all 
goes into that though. It seems to happen primarily because someone says that 
they think that it's about time that we do a release, and then we do a release 
some time after that, though not necessarily all that quickly even then. It's 
worked overall, but it's not as regular or organized as might be ideal.

- Jonathan M Davis