The best solution I can think of is planning, announcing and implementing oldstable EOLs in advance, but I'm not sure this would kill enough time in building patches to be worth a process change, and users would have to trade patches for contingency. Make of this whatever you will, I don't know what is more important.
-- Patrick Harper paia...@fastmail.com On Sun, 15 Apr 2018, at 12:02, Theo de Raadt wrote: > Patrick Harper <paia...@fastmail.com> wrote: > > > Unless I am mistaken, the errata posted on the 14th April is the first > > that has been applied to more than two releases, implying that > > 6.1-stable is still supported. Does this signify a change to the > > lifecycle process? > > No it does not indicate that. > > Official release date of 6.3 is April 15. Yes, the release went out > the door early, but the *official* date is April 15. > > Therefore we made it for 6.1 also, since 6.1 people may still be > running on the day before the *official* release day. > > We only support 2 active releases. Pulling this trick out of our hat > was extra effort, and hopefully won't be repeated again. Thanks to > robert and tb. >
