QA's Package update policy proposal

[Kevin Kofler]

Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> For  older  releases,  the  presumption/requirement  for  stability is
> higher.

Nonsense. The previous and current stable releases are both equally 
supported, there isn't one which is "more stable" than the other.

> If  you  don't have the resources to ensure that older releases remain
> more  stable  than  newer  releases,  perhaps  you  do need to revisit
> whether updates to both releases are a good idea.

The goal of continuing to maintain the previous stable release is NOT to 
have a more conservative release available, but simply to allow users to 
pick their own time for upgrading to the new release due to the disruptive 
changes made between the old and the new release (i.e. those changes which 
are intentionally NOT being pushed as updates, e.g. because they remove 
features, require manual configuration changes or whatever reason). In fact, 
the EOL time is chosen such that users can opt to skip a release entirely. 
This doesn't mean that those users do not expect to get the same kind of 
updates the current stable release gets (i.e. non-disruptive, but not 
particularly conservative updates). In fact it's quite the opposite, as a 
user I expect the release to be supported equally throughout its lifetime.

        Kevin Kofler