On 01/07/2016 05:04 PM, sebgoa wrote: > Yet folks (like Rene) may like a pattern of just minor and very infrequent > major. While folks like Remi want continuous deployment. > > So at the cost of sounding a bit "fatherly" we indeed need to discuss this a > bit. I mentioned it after 4.6, and communicate clearly to everyone how this > works. > > Keeping in mind that we don't want to abandon anyone and we want everybody to > be able to upgrade easily.
Hmm no it is not quite right. I am not against frequent majors, but I my use case needs releases to be maintained longer then the next major release. So I think the best solution would be every 12 months a LTS releases maintained for 18 months for users having such conditions. I'll get in touch with Rohit. Regards René
