[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Confusing our users - who is supporting LTS?

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,


⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

Reply to: