I also think LTS point releases should focus on bugfixes and security only, to ensure the maximum stability.
Nathan On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 8:32 AM Sebastien Lorquet <sebast...@lorquet.fr> wrote: > Hello, > > I agree. Only bugfixes, criticity threshold to be determined, but new > features seem unnecessary to me. > > Sebastien > > > On 11/02/2025 12:43, Tiago Medicci Serrano wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I would make the scope even more restricted. Considering an LTS should be > > 100% compatible with an existing defconfig, it should not add new drivers > > and new HW. I propose it to contain only bugfixes and security patches. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Em ter., 11 de fev. de 2025 às 08:27, Alin Jerpelea <jerpe...@gmail.com> > > escreveu: > > > >> I propose that for our first LTS we start with a small scope and we > >> backport only fixes, new hw and drivers > >> > >> For the future releases we may consider expanding the scope if the > workload > >> permits > >> > >> What do you think ? > >> > >> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:55 AM Laczen JMS <laczen...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Alin, > >>> > >>> I also encourage this. I would start by defining what is expected from > a > >>> LTS: > >>> > >>> A LTS release of NuttX is a release that will be maintained and > >>> supported over a longer period of time (1 year). > >>> LTS updates are mainly focused on bugfixes that where discovered and > >>> corrected during the support period. > >>> These bugfixes will be backported to the LTS release. > >>> > >>> Should new features and hardware be allowed in a LTS? If so, how many > >>> releases should they have been in? > >>> Many users will keep there own defconfig for a certain product, should > >>> they remain valid? If so are Kconfig changes allowed? > >>> > >>> Anyhow thanks for the proposal, > >>> > >>> Jehudi > >>> > >>> Op di 11 feb 2025 om 10:02 schreef Michael Jung < > michael.j...@secore.ly > >>> : > >>>> Hello Alin, > >>>> > >>>> I would love to see this, as it would make maintaining our product > much > >>>> easier. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for the proposal. > >>>> > >>>> Michael > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 9:55 AM Alin Jerpelea <jerpe...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>>> Hi all, > >>>>> > >>>>> there have been suggestions that we should create LTS releases > >>>>> > >>>>> I propose that we mark every Q1 (match) release as a LTS release and > >>>>> maintain it for 2 years. this would always ensure a fresh LTS > >>> overlapping > >>>>> the old one and allowing the users to migrate the code to the new > >>> release. > >>>>> What do you think? > >>>>> > >>>>> Best regards > >>>>> Alin > >>>>> >
