[Gluster-Maintainers] Release scheduling and lifecycle of versions
Niels de Vos
ndevos at redhat.com
Wed Jun 15 13:07:20 UTC 2016
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 07:55:09AM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> 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.
Oh, yes, great idea!
LTS: Long Term Stable - 1 year of bugfixes
STS: Short Term Stable - 3 months of bugfixes
We should use that :D
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the maintainers