Hi Paul On 11/27/2017 06:27 PM, Paul Angus wrote: > Hi Rene, > > note: I'm only stating what the original intent was when LTS was originally > proposed. I'm not trying to dictate what we must do now or in the future. > > ... The LTS scheme was designed when there was a release coming out every one > or two months, and these releases were effectively only receiving fixes for a > month or two. > > To answer your questions (taking into account the note above)- 4.9 was an LTS > version, which meant that there would be a 4.9.1, 4.9.2......4.9.6... for a > period of 2 years. > 4.9.x was the latest 'version' at the beginning of 2017. > Unfortunately, it was also the latest version in the middle of 2017. So in > mid-2017 we took the latest version (4.9 again) and said that we would > continue backporting fix for that version for 2 years from mid 2017.
This is absolutely fine, we are on the same page. > Some variant of your proposal "6 months after next LTS release (minimum 18 > months)." would also work. > I think something like "supported for a minimum of 6 months after next LTS > release or a total period of 24 months, whichever is greater" suits what you > are saying? That would definitely make things more clear to users. Regards René
