I think LTS is a good idea, but I am afraid we'd be spreading ourselves too thin with maintaining that in addition to mainline.
The way I see it, one way to have this sorted is by means of commercial offerings from companies such as ShapeBlue. What lifetime are we talking rougly for an LTS release? 6 months, 12 months? Lucian -- Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! Nux! www.nux.ro ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Daan Hoogland" <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> > To: "dev" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > Sent: Monday, 11 January, 2016 13:19:48 > Subject: Re: LTS release or not > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 7:58 AM, Rene Moser <m...@renemoser.net> wrote: > >> >> * Fix must be important. >> >> >> > >> > Who defines what 'important' is? >> >> "must be important" means we do not backport trivial things like typos >> in docs and so forth, only important things. And I would say important >> in a common sense. But it doesn't mean that all important fixes will be >> backportable, because they may not be necessary "obvious and small". >> > > if it is really important it should be fixed on the LTS first and then > merged to 'bleeding edge' if still applicable. > > Limitation of warranty: I really don't like this discussion as it negates > most of the hard weekend work I did over the last half year. > > > > -- > Daan
