Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> For older releases, the presumption/requirement for stability is
> higher.
Nonsense. The previous and current stable releases are both equally
supported, there isn't one which is "more stable" than the other.
> If you don't have the resources to ensure that older releases remain
> more stable than newer releases, perhaps you do need to revisit
> whether updates to both releases are a good idea.
The goal of continuing to maintain the previous stable release is NOT to
have a more conservative release available, but simply to allow users to
pick their own time for upgrading to the new release due to the disruptive
changes made between the old and the new release (i.e. those changes which
are intentionally NOT being pushed as updates, e.g. because they remove
features, require manual configuration changes or whatever reason). In fact,
the EOL time is chosen such that users can opt to skip a release entirely.
This doesn't mean that those users do not expect to get the same kind of
updates the current stable release gets (i.e. non-disruptive, but not
particularly conservative updates). In fact it's quite the opposite, as a
user I expect the release to be supported equally throughout its lifetime.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
