[tor-dev] RFC: Tor long-term support policy

Nick Mathewson nickm at alum.mit.edu
Fri Jan 13 21:00:49 UTC 2017

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Ian Goldberg <iang at cs.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 09:29:25AM -0500, Nick Mathewson wrote:
>> Hi, all!
>> This is a draft for a tor long-term support policy for the program
>> "tor". Please let me know what you think.  It's based on earlier work
>> and surveys, but it isn't final till we say it is, and it needs more
>> commentary.
>> Please keep in mind that dropping support for any old release is an
>> inconvenience to some nice busy people, and that supporting any old
>> release is an inconvenience to other nice busy people. Therefore,
>> "don't inconvenience anybody" is not a viable goal here: instead we
>> are stuck with a balancing act.
> I like this plan.  Is there a reason 0.2.5.x in particular was chosen
> as the retroactive LTS?

I think it's because of the volume of relays running Debian Jessie,
and because it's easier to tell really-old-version users to upgrade
than to tell them to downgrade.

Our earlier draft stuff is all here: https://pad.riseup.net/p/tor-lts
, including an attempt to figure out what versions exist where.


More information about the tor-dev mailing list