You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
From distribution point of view (SUSE), switching Active LTS with Maintenance LTS is not a problem. It's actually better from stability point of view. But it would always be a better for distros if Maintenance LTS would be increased. I do understand that this is not always possible due to 3rd party code (OpenSSL, for example)
Activity
AdamMajer commentedon Jun 11, 2019
From distribution point of view (SUSE), switching Active LTS with Maintenance LTS is not a problem. It's actually better from stability point of view. But it would always be a better for distros if Maintenance LTS would be increased. I do understand that this is not always possible due to 3rd party code (OpenSSL, for example)
So no objections here. 👍
mhdawson commentedon Jun 11, 2019
I'm +1 for the switch provided we are flexible enough to get changes into Maintenance when it makes sense.
BridgeAR commentedon Jun 12, 2019
I suggest we'll discuss this in our next meeting.
sam-github commentedon Jun 20, 2019
+1
cjihrig commentedon Oct 20, 2019
Has this been settled on? Based on #477 landing, it seems like it has been, and this should be closed.
meta: swap active and maintenance periods
richardlau commentedon Oct 20, 2019
We need to update the general policy. Here's a PR: #492
meta: swap active and maintenance periods (#492)
meta: swap active and maintenance periods (#492)