Web lists-archives.com

Re: Confusing our users - who is supporting LTS?




On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 08:58:47AM +0000, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 09:41:43AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 01:02:57PM -0300, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> > > I meant that we would say that stable is supported by the security team.
> > > And instead of saying that Jessie was supported by the LTS team, we
> > > would say supported by Freexian.
> > 
> > I would object to that, on the grounds that even though Freexian is
> > currently the only company paying people to do LTS support, we should
> > not encourage the idea that they have a monopoly on doing that.
> 
> In my view, that is a situation we could address at the time that we had
> more than one company doing LTS work. Until that time, I don't think
> it's a problem. It's consistent with our listing of consultants, and
> addresses the problems of the official-ness-or-not of LTS that are why
> this thread started.
> 
> > If some other company decides that they are not happy with Freexian,
> > then they are currently able to just start their own competing project
> > and do things differently. This is a good thing.
> 
> They would still be able to do so even if we were listing Freexian as
> being the only entity supporting LTS (which is a statement of current
> fact after all): I don't think the hypothetical competing company would
> be too bashful to ask us to update the website. And we could pre-empt
> the situation by making a clear statement as to the project's position
> on listing Freexian (essentially codifying what I'm writing here,
> somewhere)

It was said in this same thread that Freexian is already not the only
company paying people to do LTS work. See
<d0a97cf9b501a46fcb92c5166b3b901b6cfddb7f.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature