From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: Which trees are supported (Was: Re:
 [qemu-upstream-4.2-testing test] 77180: regressions - FAIL)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 13:09:51 +0000
Message-ID: <1452172191.21055.210.camel@citrix.com>
References: <osstest-77180-mainreport@xen.org>
	<1452160573.21055.147.camel@citrix.com>
	<1452165737.21055.197.camel@citrix.com>
	<568E5DF902000078000C4542@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
	<5E76374B-EEBA-4C0B-A157-85E4F57DBEE3@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <5E76374B-EEBA-4C0B-A157-85E4F57DBEE3@gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Lars Kurth <lars.kurth.xen@gmail.com>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, WeiLiu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, Lars Kurth <lars.kurth@xen.org>, Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Thu, 2016-01-07 at 12:44 +0000, Lars Kurth wrote:
> > On 7 Jan 2016, at 11:45, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > > > On 07.01.16 at 12:22, <ian.campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
> > > So this arose because Stefano was unaware that 4.2 was no longer
> > > supported.
> > > Neither am I ever confident about where the cut-off lie, e.g. I
> > > always have
> > > to ask if I am doing backports for a security issue.
> > > 
> > > We should add rows to http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_Release_Features
> > > right
> > > under Initial Release giving first the date until which that tree is
> > > supported with backports and second the date until which security
> > > support
> > > will exist. We might also want to add a third "status" row. e.g.
> > > "Supported", "Security Support only", "EOL" (we'll deal with extended
> > > support by a third party when that next arises).
> > > 
> > > I'm happy to make the edits, however I don't know what dates I would
> > > write 
> > > here. Taking it to be 18 months of Support and a further 18 months of
> > > security support I would get:
> 
> Ian, that would be great. Can you ping me when done?

Done.

I dropped the "EOL - " prefixes, since it seems that if we forget to add
them as new things are EOL'd then there would be ambiguity between things
marked "EOL - Date" and things marked as just "Date" where Date is in the
past -- i.e. folks might think the EOL didn't occur.

Ian.