On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 07:34:47PM -0400, Matt Coleman wrote: > > On Oct 30, 2020, at 11:54 AM, Andrea Bolognani <abologna@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Dropping 2008R2 support is a no-brainer. > > > > Can we got further? Our policy[1] for Linux is > > > > The project aims to support the most recent major version at all > > times. Support for the previous major version will be dropped 2 > > years after the new major version is released or when the vendor > > itself drops support, whichever comes first. > > > > If we adopted the same policy for Windows Server[2], then we could > > drop support for 2012R2 today and support for 2016 in the next > > release. > > > > Is there a good reason why we should *not* do that? > > We need 2012R2 support at Datto, so I'd like to keep it in there for > the time being. This is for integration with our customers' systems, so > we don't have control over the OS version. It still accounts for a > significant portion of our customer base. Given that Datto is the only org to make significant contributions to the HyperV driver in years, I'm fine with us keeping 2012R2. Our support policy is basically written to suit the needs of the people who are taking on the maintainership, so its fine to evolve it. I simply ask that the docs/platforms.rst and/or drvhyperv.html.in pages be updated to reflect what we're doing wrt HyperV support. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
