On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:03 AM, Lamar Owen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 03/25/2014 08:48 AM, Andras Horvath wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 16:55:25 -0500
>> Connie Sieh <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Point releases (7.1, etc.) might disappear. Expect them to not.
>>
>> Would this mean that the support of the minor branches would end and only
>> the most recent minor version would get the long term support? If so, then I
>> strongly believe that one of the most precious advantages of SL would
>> disappear - compared to CentOS AFAIK.
>
> This is one of the key distinctions between SL and CentOS, and I would
> imagine is more than a small amount of work on the SL team, especially as
> the number of point releases increase.  I would find it interesting to see
> who is using this capability and specific reasons why they need (rather than
> want) this capability (specific drivers for specialized hardware, etc).  I'm
> not interested in debating the reasons why, just collating them.
>
> I would further find it interesting to hear from the SL developers on how
> much time is spent in this aspect of putting out SL updates for old point
> releases.

Indeed, being able to stay at a point release is one major reason I
use SL on some systems. So, I'm greatly interested in this discussion
point. My understanding is that this 'feature' was implemented very
early on because of requests by users. In fact Red Hat's EUS (extended
update service) was started much later, but presumably due to similar
demands/needs.

Akemi