Code review comment for ~mdeslaur/ubuntu-cve-tracker:perf-part4

> So 5762b55746375254778688fe3d0d64f1811d45f7 modifies the way active_edit will
> create a new CVE file. It will no longer add the end of standard support
> releases...for example:
>
> Patches_anacron:
> upstream_anacron: needs-triage
> trusty/esm_anacron: needs-triage
> esm-infra/xenial_anacron: needs-triage
> esm-infra/bionic_anacron: needs-triage
> focal_anacron: needs-triage
> jammy_anacron: needs-triage
> mantic_anacron: needs-triage
> devel_anacron: needs-triage
>
>
> instead of:
>
> Patches_anacron:
> upstream_anacron: needs-triage
> trusty_anacron: ignored (end of standard support)
> trusty/esm_anacron: needs-triage
> xenial_anacron: ignored (end of standard support)
> esm-infra/xenial_anacron: needs-triage
> bionic_anacron: ignored (end of standard support)
> esm-infra/bionic_anacron: needs-triage
> focal_anacron: needs-triage
> jammy_anacron: needs-triage
> mantic_anacron: needs-triage
> devel_anacron: needs-triage
>
> Do we really need those releases to be listed in new CVE files? All they do is
> add noise, and if nothing uses them, perhaps we should simply leave them out?

from an OVAL point of view, I don't think this will be a problem as we moved into having one OVAL (CVE- or PKG-based) per release, therefore it will consider trusty/esm in that case, instead of trusty, for example.

I believe that won't create an issue for the Web CVE Tracker, but maybe it might be worth testing with a single CVE file and seeing if anything happens in the website.