Would it be OK to name the (planned) release date of the final minor release in that table?
I'm asking because I've had some complaints from people who assume, I believe reasonably, that that table represents the actual EOL and not the current meaning of, "the date past which the date of the next point release is planned to come out."
What say?
Maybe do:
Current: "After its end-of-life (EOL) month ends, a major version receives one final minor release. After that final minor release, bug fixing ceases for that major version."
Change that to read "After its end-of-life month (EOL Month) passes a major version receives one final minor release and no more bug fix patches will be written for it."
Then update the column header to read "EOL Month" instead of "EOL date"
I don't see a problem with people thinking they have roughly 4 fewer months (one less minor version) of support for their version than they really do if they mis-interpret the meaning of the month in the column. We are perfectly clear in the text as to our procedure.
David J.
P.S. Style-wise the words "minor", "release" and "date" should all be capitalized when used as column header titles.
P.P.S. The table could use splitting into supported and non-supported instead of simply using the yes/no to distinguish between the two. Its getting kind of long and the non-supported should not draw attention away from the list of supported releases.
