On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 05:54:14PM +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
> Julian Foad wrote:
> > Forget about overlap periods, for a moment. Then there will be usually 3
> > supported lines (after a standard release) and sometimes 2 [...]
> I am wondering if we have been mis-thinking the support plans. Why should we want to backport feature fixes and improvements for 6 months and then security fixes for another 6 months in parallel with the next standard release? Surely the idea is that the standard releases themselves are the opportunity for feature upgrade, and in exchange for being quick on features the down side is a short support life.
> A lighter proposal (still ignoring overlap periods, for the moment):
> LTS: a release every 2 years, with 4 years support (security/corruption fixes, and possibly some other improvements at our discretion);
> standard: a release every 6 months (between LTS releases), with 6 months support (security/corruption fixes only)
> - Julian
We have already applied securify patches across 3 releases in some
situations, if I recall correctly. And we did this even though the
3rd of those was already officially at end of life.
I would prefer having just the minimum requirements we are going
to fullfill written down. What you wrote above makes sense to me.
I don't see a problem with making decisions to over-deliver on
these written promises on a case-by-case basis as we see fit.
Received on 2018-06-25 19:01:52 CEST