On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues <look...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Guannan, > > Since 52.0 is the new LTS release, and since we usually only backport > bugfixes, not features, I'd ask you if porting your stuff to 52.0 is an > option. > > Because the request, as is, is something that I [1] would like to avoid. > Please let me know of your current needs and let's see how we can accomodate > them. > > [1] Of course, we need to hear the opinion of the other maintainers. Guys, > let me know what are your thoughts. >
Yes, I was thinking about that. All your preassumptions are perfect: we don't backport features, 52 is the 'current' LTS and so on. On the other hand, v36 is still supported (until Dec 27/2017, at least) and it's the only LTS that supports RHEL6, so upgrading to v52 is not an option for him. Even if we consider it a "support exception" and backport that feature, it will solve a very specific problem with a workflow that can not be replicated after the v36 EOL. And RHEL6 is not even close to the EOL. According to https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata, RHEL6 can be someway supported up to 2024(!). So, Guannan, instead of claiming "support exception" for this feature, I'd recommend you to create/maintain an internal lib with all the features needed for your tests, even if that's just to backport upstream features like that one for your never-ending RHEL6 testing environment. How does that sound? > Cheers. > > On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 8:42 AM Guannan Sun <g...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> As RHEL6 still need use 36lts, and cases updated with using the function >> in PR 1376: >> >> https://github.com/avocado-framework/avocado/pull/1376 >> >> could you help backport the commits to 36lts? >> >> Thanks! >> Guannan