KatolaZ <katolaz@???> escribió:

> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 09:57:08PM -0700, James Powell wrote:
>> An LTS branch isn't needed if you do version controlled releases
>> and sponsor support for versioned releases for at least 3-4
>> versions back.
>
> [cut]
>
>>
>> As releases mature, 1.0 would be maintained until the fourth or
>> fifth release year following, then pastured, regardless of version
>> number. The only time the main number should be changed is IF and
>> ONLY IF glibc is updated, otherwise 1.0 would transmigrate to 1.1.
>>
>> How does that sound?
>>
>
> It sounds like Slackware, and there is a clear reason why I have been
> using Debian and not Slackware. I believe that the
> stable-testing-unstable-experimental organisation is working already
> fine. We can discuss whether we have the possibility (and the
> resources) to provide long-time support releases, but if you guys want
> to make a Slackvuan, then don't count me in.

I think the plan is FIVE branches:

+experimental (always experimental, packages migrate to development)
+development (always development, packages migrate to testing, gets
cloned into testing on stable release)
+testing (transforms into stable on release)
*stable (transforms into oldstable on release)
+oldstable (disappears on release)

I think the support given to stable + oldstable is enough for business
needs: it may be 2+2 years!

Regards

Noel
er Envite