Joe McCabe wrote: > I think we should allow one minor revision back along with "tip" > minor version cohabitation (i.e. 2.2.x & 2.4.x), but with a clear > termination point on the older version. Some kind of policy like:
Matt Ingenthron wrote: > > What I was thinking of is state a "minimum" of xx months. The actual > support lifecycle to be determined based on both demand from customers > and what's feasible with respect to keeping in synch with the upstream. Note that the exact details of how many concurrent versions to actively maintain (strictly 1 or a dozen or any n) and for how long each is a really business decision of the distribution (Sun for Solaris), not something we, here, need to figure out. The engineering discussion here is whether the layout should permit that, keeping in mind complexity isn't free. -- Jyri J. Virkki - jyri.virkki at sun.com - Sun Microsystems
