Re: [DOCS] 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 wrote:
> 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?

"Current Releases" I'm fine with - that seems to get the point across a
bit better than what we have today, I think.

If people agree, we'll just go bug Tom (or was it Toms wife?) about
generating a new image for us to put there.

//Magnus