Re: should we have a separate page that clearly defines what a minor release is and why it's a good idea to keep up with them?

["Andrew Hammond" <andrew(dot)george(dot)hammond(at)gmail(dot)com>]

On 2/22/07, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:

> >> > On the front page, we already have "Latest Releases" with links to the
> >> > most recent release for each version still actively maintained and
> >> > release notes.  (Would it make sense to change that title from "Latest
> >> > Releases" to "Actively Maintained Releases")
> >>
> >> I think not. The meaning is "latest releases available for each branch",
> >> not "these are the actively maintained branches".
> >
> > Why aren't 7.3.18, 7.2.8, 7.1.6, etc there then?
> >
> > Clearly there is some criteria for which branches are presented there.
>
> <7.3 is EOL. We still back patch what we can but they are considered
> deprecated.

Yeah, I figured that was the criteria. So, is it not reasonable to say
that the releases listed on the front page under "Latest Releases" are
actually "Current minor release for branches which have not reached
EoL"? Perhaps instead of "Latest Releases" or "Actively Maintained
Releases" something like "Current Releases" says that better?

Andrew