Hi! AFAIK we don't really have a policy (perhaps by accident, perhaps by design) on the handling of older branches, EOL, etc.
De facto, we have traditionally de facto EOLed the previous branch at or around the release of the next minor version. Question 1: Do we want to officially EOL releases ? If yes, then then do we want a written policy for that, or decide on a case-by case basis ? Question 2 (depending on Question 1): How should we handle non-current release branches (currently 5.1) ? - Should we maintain (and require non-problematic fixes to be backported to) them until they are officially EOLed ? - Should we keep them open (even after EOL, if we do explicit EOL), and leave it to the committer's discretion whether to backport or not ? - Should we close them and discourage commits ? Personally, for $dayjob it is convenient for us to backport some of our fixes to older (really 1 release behind) branches, as we have a long support tail. It may also be useful for users who cannot or choose not to upgrade for some reason or another. At the same time, requiring this from every committer would be a waste of effort. Looking forward to learning your opinion. Istvan
