Stefan Sperling wrote:
[...] > But the amount of work involved in everyone else running tests and
signing
releases must also be considered. We barely made the required signature count
for our last 3 releases. Focussing our volunteer resources on releases that
are actually used by Debian and Red Hat (as reference platforms that usually
ship our "oldest" releases) seems fair.
So I vote for softly reducing the support effort while leaving it documented
as "supported".
That's fine with me. It would more or less amount to the same thing :)
We have had "security and data corruption fixes only" backport guidelines
in the past. I'd suggest we could apply this to 1.9.
Sounds good to me.
Thanks.
- Julian
