Timing of EOL notices

[Kate Stewart]

On Fri, 2012-05-18 at 13:05 -0500, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-05-18 at 11:38 -0500, Kate Stewart wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-05-18 at 10:58 -0500, Jamie Strandboge wrote:
> > > Hi Kate,
> > > 
> > > I took an action item at UDS to discuss with the release team the timing
> > > of the EOL notices. Because we are currently backporting the kernel (and
> > > eventually X stack) to earlier releases, the timing of the EOL notice
> > > has an effect on the support for people running an LTS with backported
> > > kernel/X packages. Because the security, kernel and desktop teams will
> > > stop performing security updates past the EOL, it the EOL happens
> > > earlier than the release day, there can be a gap in support.
> > > 
> > > A specific example: 10.10 was EOLd in early April this year. 10.04 LTS
> > > users with a backported maverick kernel therefore no longer received
> > > security updates for this kernel after the EOL announcement (naturally),
> > > but these users did not have a viable upgrade path to maintain security
> > > support. They couldn't go to 10.10 (it was just made EOL) and 12.04 LTS
> > > was not released yet. I suggest the EOL announcement go out on the
> > > Friday or Monday after release such that there is at least a day of
> > > overlap. This is still within the spirit of 18 months support, even if
> > > it is actually off be a few days.
> > 
> > How do you feel about it being release + 2 week task?  That will account
> > for the 25/27 week split,  and still give us the 18 months.  I don't
> > think the pattern of 10.10 will happen again, so it should be treated as
> > a once of, rather than systemic problem. 
> > 
> > Challenge is that there are a lot of events to track around the release
> > going out,  and bringing the new release on line.   Adding the shutting
> > down and cross checking that needs to happen, risks confusions
> > occuring.  
> > 
> > Will release+2 weeks to shut down the -18month release work for your
> > team?
> > 
> > Kate.
> 
> This is acceptable to me. It messages the same and should account for
> any gaps. Thanks!
> 
Thanks!   I'll update the checklists accordingly.  :)

Kate