What changed was that there was a period after 6.3 was pushed out the door (2-15 April) in which there were effectively three active releases and the project felt obliged to support 6.1 until 6.3's projected release date. My previous post attempted to review a possible workaround, though I suspect this sort of anomaly might not be practically avoidable.
(Theo received this twice, sorry) -- Patrick Harper paia...@fastmail.com On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, at 08:19, Theo de Raadt wrote: > Huh? We've told everyone 2 releases maintained with errata/syspatches, > 6 months apart, only. Nothing changed here. We don't need to > change a single word about EOL. It is exactly the same as before. > > > The best solution I can think of is planning, announcing and > > implementing oldstable EOLs in advance, but I'm not sure this would > > kill enough time in building patches to be worth a process change, and > > users would have to trade patches for contingency. Make of this > > whatever you will, I don't know what is more important. > > > > -- > > Patrick Harper > > paia...@fastmail.com > > > > On Sun, 15 Apr 2018, at 12:02, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > > Patrick Harper <paia...@fastmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Unless I am mistaken, the errata posted on the 14th April is the first > > > > that has been applied to more than two releases, implying that > > > > 6.1-stable is still supported. Does this signify a change to the > > > > lifecycle process? > > > > > > No it does not indicate that. > > > > > > Official release date of 6.3 is April 15. Yes, the release went out > > > the door early, but the *official* date is April 15. > > > > > > Therefore we made it for 6.1 also, since 6.1 people may still be > > > running on the day before the *official* release day. > > > > > > We only support 2 active releases. Pulling this trick out of our hat > > > was extra effort, and hopefully won't be repeated again. Thanks to > > > robert and tb. > > > > > >
