Re: RFC: LTS and stable release scheme

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>]

On Tue, 2015-10-06 at 12:07 +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> 2. What to do with the non-LTS releases?
> 
> I think they should still be considered stable releases for some
> time. I'm just not sure for how long they should receive updates. One
> way of looking at them is to use the same concept as Linux -- they
> receive updates until next stable kernel is out. We can tweak this, of
> course.

FWIW I think reducing the time non-LTS stable releases are supported would
be a reasonable way to offset the extra cost of maintaining the LTS
releases for longer overall.

> Luckily I do see technical and procedural solution this is issue -- we
> can setup stable@ alias to keep track of requests [5]. With that all
> backport requests embedded in patches won't get lost. Downstream
> consumers can also benefit from this because they then easily know
> which patches are backport candidates.

It sounds here like you are proposing something more than a simple mail
alias dropping into the relevant maintainer(s) INBOX, i.e. something which
actually tracks the requests and publishes the queue and status etc for the
benefit of both users and the maintainers?

Ian.