Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21480200D4F for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 07:13:57 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 1FC00160C0E; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 06:13:57 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 5C8B0160BFC for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 07:13:56 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 28704 invoked by uid 500); 22 Nov 2017 06:13:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cloudstack.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cloudstack.apache.org Received: (qmail 28693 invoked by uid 99); 22 Nov 2017 06:13:55 -0000 Received: from mail-relay.apache.org (HELO mail-relay.apache.org) (140.211.11.15) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 06:13:55 +0000 Received: from [192.168.7.235] (unknown [41.249.95.140]) by mail-relay.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mail-relay.apache.org) with ESMTPSA id 411541A02CD for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 06:13:53 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: CloudStack LTS EOL date? To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org References: From: Milamber Organization: Apache Software Foundation Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 06:13:51 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:49.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/49.0 SeaMonkey/2.46 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit archived-at: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 06:13:57 -0000 Sound good for me too On 21/11/2017 11:04, Rene Moser wrote: > Hi all > > The current LTS release is 4.9 which is EOL in June 2018 according to > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/LTS > > AFAIK there are no works planed for a new LTS. The release pace has > slown down (the high pace and leaving users behind fixes was the reason > for the LTS). > > I am still pro LTS but in my opinion we should have defined the EOL in > relation of the successor LTS release date: "The EOL of the current LTS > is +6 months after the next LTS release." > > Small example: > > Current LTS 4.9 > Next LTS 4.1x release on 01.04. --> LTS 4.9 is 01.10. > > Does this make sense? Other suggestions? > > Regards > René > . >