I thought the other part of LTS was to put it through the NETCAT process with more rigorous testing on a milestone release to ensure the quality of the release for potential use in a more controlled / managed environment. With the NETCAT process being a little more time consuming, this being one of the main reasons it’s not good for each release.
Eric Bresie [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) > On January 2, 2021 at 4:40:14 PM CST, Laszlo Kishalmi > <[email protected] (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: > Dear all, > > Let me resurrect this thread as we are nearing to 13.0 and the > relationship between 12.3 and 13.0 is still aged > Do we actually need a 13.0 as an LTS especially when Java 17 will be an > LTS in September. > > To be honest, I do not know how to imagine these relationships. > > > @Neil: I think LTS is more than just providing critical fixes. In my > view it is improving usability/stability by conservative patching. > > > On 7/10/20 9:27 AM, Neil C Smith wrote: > > On Thu, 9 Jul 2020 at 19:31, Matthias Bläsing <[email protected] > > (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: > > > I don't know where the LTS requirement comes from, > > Yes, agreed. I mean, I know how it got in the release schedule! ;-) > > But I wrote it in there based on it coming up in different contexts in > > the preceding discussions, but with various views on the requirements. > > It does also make sense of the fact that we can't feasibly do four > > NetCATs in a year, but then maybe the future of that can't be > > disentangled from this. > > > > I think Laszlo's email is a good start to narrowing down what we mean > > and how. Although I'm not convinced an LTS for more than a year makes > > much sense with the speed of language updates. > > > > > but my take on this: > > > I think the JDK way looks reasonable. We focus on master, if people > > > want an LTS version, they can step up inside the project and work on > > > the LTS version. > > ... > > > I don't see why a release of an LTS version should happen outside the > > > project. > > I get the feeling, given what I said, and what Laszlo said in his > > email, that we're pretty much saying the same thing here. I was > > basically making the same point, that those who need an LTS (inc. > > downstream distributors) make it happen, together, here. The rest of > > us, the project as a whole, just concentrates on quarterly releases. > > > > On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 23:10, Laszlo Kishalmi <[email protected] > > (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: > > > * There shall be a quarterly update release, preferably about one > > > month after the last .x release, if we can do that (that's from me) > > I still don't understand this point. If an LTS is feature stable but > > just getting critical fixes as originally discussed, then those should > > be backported and pushed out as soon as feasible after merge to master > > and some testing? Or are you proposing an LTS getting more updates > > than that? > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Neil > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > (mailto:[email protected]) > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > (mailto:[email protected]) > > > > For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > (mailto:[email protected]) > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > (mailto:[email protected]) > > For further information about the NetBeans mailing lists, visit: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/NETBEANS/Mailing+lists > > >
