Any version that is not a year old should be LTS in my view. We must as reviewers take care that fixes are merged on the oldest branch first and then merged forward along the line. To me this was the whole purpose of the changes we did to our release process. Are we abandonning this now to return to fixing on seperate branches and have the same fix in multiple commitishes? Excuse my Dutch: That sucks.
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Nux! <n...@li.nux.ro> wrote: > 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 > -- Daan
