[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: A proposal...

At the pace of our (currently 'minor', contrast to 'patch') releases there are about 2-4 / year. I agree with the idea of monthly bug fix patch releases.

Declaring the first minor of each year as LTS for 2 years, we could get security fixes into legacy users hands. It would be a good starting point for anyone trying to patch some version between LTS and LTS-1.

Those that don't update for years seem to rarely pay much attention to vulnerabilities anyways, and distributors choose their own path, so this seems like a good compromise.

Security fixes -> trunk (next minor) > current minor > last LTS major.minor > previous LTS major.minor.

I agree with Eric that optionally enabling a fix during the current minor might be useful (think HTTP_PROXY protection), but these would rarely map to the behavior of the next version minor (optional for patch, but default to new recommended behavior in next version minor.)

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018, 13:29 Eric Covener <covener@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Should we also need some kind of LTS version? If yes, how to choose them?
I think it would be required with frequent minor releases.