[Gluster-Maintainers] Release scheduling and lifecycle of versions

Ric Wheeler rwheeler at redhat.com
Wed Jun 15 12:55:09 UTC 2016

On 06/14/2016 10:59 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:02:12PM -0400, Kaleb Keithley wrote:
>> But we don't need to guess, we can just ask our resident legal
>> counsel, who wi ll tell us if there are any implications to calling
>> our planned long life cycle release of Community GlusterFS an "LTS
>> release."
>> Off hand I wouldn't expect there to be, but––
>> Richard (and Ric) what, if any, implications are there? Should we pick a different name?
> No objection to "LTS" from me. I do not consider the 'S" to imply
> "commercial support" if that's what the concern is (but even if it
> did, that would not create any legal issue). I defer to Ric on whether
> there could be some non-legal concern around using "LTS".
> Richard

The kernel calls its long term upstream versions "stable" releases or branches. 
LTS could stand for long term stable I suppose :)

I don't think that we really care much, what we call the community branches 
should be a community call. I would agree that avoiding "supported" in the title 
is probably a good thing, but don't lose sleep over those terms.

thanks for bringing this up!


More information about the maintainers mailing list