On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:43:02PM -0400, Nathan Hartman wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 4:56 PM Daniel Sahlberg > <daniel.l.sahlb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Den ons 27 apr. 2022 kl 21:02 skrev Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name>: > >> > >> As to the general rule, I think we're missing a piece: the overlap > >> period. We should say something along the lines of "Every LTS release > >> will be supported for at least Y years, or until M months after the > >> release of another LTS .0, whichever comes later.". > > > > > > +1 to have an overlap period. > > > > Y = 4, M = 3? Or M = 6? > > > I'm also +1 to have an overlap period, and the idea of "at least Y > years, or until M months after the release of another LTS .0, > whichever comes later" seems quite reasonable to me.
Shouldn't this say "whichever comes earlier"? Otherwise, the M months rule would never apply in case we release more than one LTS line within Y years, right? Would we then end up fully supporting several lines of LTS releases? Example with Y=4: release 1.15.0 in year 1 (support 1.15) release 1.16.0 in year 2 (support 1.15, 1.16) release 1.17.0 in year 3 (support 1.15, 1.16, 1.17) release 1.18.0 in year 4 (support 1.15, 1.16, 1.17, 1.18) release 1.19.0 in year 5 (support 1.16, 1.17, 1.18, 1.19) ... I think it would be better to have such details spelled out in English in a manner that is easy to understand for anyone, with illustrating examples, instead of (or in addition to) mathematical notation that requires abstract thinking to figure out.
