On Fri, 14 Jul 2017, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 06:47:30PM +0200, Micha Lenk wrote: > > Hi Nicholas, > > > > On 07/12/2017 12:32 PM, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > > >All backporters have a responsibility to maintain their backports with > > >updates from codename+1 until codename+2 is released, but IIRC they > > >become the LTS Team's responsibility when old-stable becomes > > >old-old-stable. > > > > No, I wouldn't expect that. > > Eh? > wheezy7-bpos must be updated from jessie8 until stretch9 is released > jessie8-bpos must be update from stretch9 until buster10 is released > > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 07:40:02PM +0200, Alexander Wirt wrote: > > > > > > No, I wouldn't expect that. > > LTS Team is not involved in backports. And old-old-stable backports doesn't > > exist. > > I swear I read a thread about how the expectation is that a backporter > is not responsible for continuing to maintain his/her bpos in the part > of the LTS lifecycle after +2 is released...but how the LTS team would > if they felt the bpo was important. Maybe I missed the end of that > discussion? Was it resolved that backports become unmaintained when > old-stable becomes old-old-stable? We had an experiment where backporters were responsible for old-old-stable-backports too. It didn't worked well and we decided to stop support for old-old-stable backports with the release of stretch [1]. Alex [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-backports/2017/06/msg00055.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature