Open Stack

> i know that would make some downstream happy as perhaps we could align
> our FFU support with THE LTS cadance but i would hold my breath on
> that.

Except any downstream that is unable to align on the LTS schedule either
permanently or temporarily would have to wait a full extra year to
resync, which would make them decidedly unhappy I think. I'm sure some
distros have had to realign downstream releases to "the next" upstream
one more than once, so... :)

> as a developer i woudl presonally prefer to have shorter cycle
> upstream with uprades supporte aross a more then n+1 e.g. release
> every 2 months but keep rolling upgrade compatiablty for at least 12
> months or someting like that.  the release with intermeiday lifecyle
> can enable that while still allowign use to have a longer or shorter
> planing horizon depending on the project and its veliocity.

This has the same problem as you highlighted above, which is that we all
have to agree on the same 12 months that we're supporting that span,
otherwise this collapses to just the intersection of any two projects'
windows.

--Dan