Follow Up from "Let's Discuss Interim Releases"

[Phillip Susi]

On 3/9/2013 6:45 AM, Otus wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Robert Bruce Park
> <robert.park at canonical.com> wrote:
>> Although I feel quite strongly about my support for the rolling
>> release model, if it is rejected, we can't continue as we used to. We
>> simply do not have the resources to support more than two releases at
>> a time. I'd prefer to only have to support LTS+rolling, but LTS+"one
>> interim at a time" would be an acceptable second best.
>
> If you need/wish to cut down the number of supported releases all the
> way down to two at a time (from current ~5) there are really only two
> options:

I am pretty sure he meant all supported LTS count as one, and the goal 
is to not have more than one non LTS supported.