I think we have to declare 2.0 and 1.9 LTS. If you look back at the history of our releases, we are basically already doing this... adding a LTS label to a release I think would just help users.
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 6:30 PM Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 5:49 PM Keith Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 10:46 AM Mike Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > What happens if nobody is interested in being a release manager for a > > > version? > > > What happens if the schedule is missed? > > > - Then there is no release. I would imagine if we can find the right > time > > > frame and devs are actively working, this won't be a problem though. > > > Perhaps simplifying the release process would help ease the burden of > > > releasing. > > > > Release schedule and LTS are two separate issues. We could adopt the > > concept of having LTS releases w/o having a fixed schedule. I think > > there are benefits to clearly communicating if a release will be bug > > fixed or not. > > I agree with that. My hesitation is mostly about establishing concrete > schedules, and not the LTS concept itself. > > I'm in favor of defining LTS. Since this is a volunteer community, we > need to be clear that our definition of LTS is one of intent to patch > bugs, and not a promise of support. I propose something like: > > "LTS means the community intends to provide bug fix releases for that > minor version for a 'support period' of at least 2 years, with 1 year > of overlap between two subsequent LTS releases. Bug fix releases are > indicated by an increment to the last element of the x.y.z version > number. For example, if 1.6 was declared an LTS, 1.6.0 would be its > initial release, beginning the support period, and 1.6.1, 1.6.2, etc. > could be bug fixes releases within the support period. Non-LTS > versions are less likely to receive bug fix releases. Instead, bugs > for those versions are likely to be fixed in the next major/minor > release." > > I'm also in favor of declaring 2.0 as LTS, to communicate our > intentions to patch it for awhile (maybe also 1.9?). >
