Den tis 3 maj 2022 kl 22:39 skrev Daniel Sahlberg < daniel.l.sahlb...@gmail.com>:
> Den mån 2 maj 2022 23:01Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> skrev: > >> Daniel Sahlberg wrote on Mon, 02 May 2022 20:12 +00:00: >> > Thanks to everyone for discussing this and moving it forward! I'm sorry >> I >> > wasn't able to be more active last week but life got in the way. >> > >> > One small point below... >> > >> > Den lör 30 apr. 2022 kl 00:04 skrev <danie...@apache.org>: >> > [...] >> > >> >> +<li><p>LTS releases are supported for <b>four years</b> from the date >> of >> >> their >> >> +initial release. For instance, 1.15.x will supported until four years >> >> after >> >> +the announcement of 1.15.0.</p> >> >> >> > >> > Should we really declare 1.15 an LTS release at this stage? >> >> No. Deciding whether 1.15 should be LTS or Regular deserves a thread of >> its own. As far as this thread is concerned, the documentation should >> reflect the status quo: that it has not been decided yet whether 1.15 >> will be LTS or Regular. >> >> Good catch. >> >> If someone could please update the text staging/ that would be great. >> > > r1900528 > > >> > I would also suggest to remove the "Transition to LTS and Regular >> > Releases" >> > section ( >> > >> https://subversion-staging.apache.org/roadmap.html#transition-lts-regular-releases >> ) >> > since it seems to concern the fixed-time release schedule. I can do >> > this, >> > just wanting to check that I don't missread something. >> >> The description of what we backport is "general backports and thereafter >> high priority fixes" in this section, and "high priority issues such as >> … and sometimes also other issues" in the section above. We might want >> to clarify the "other issues" part of the latter sentence when we delete >> this section. >> > > Oh. I read this too quick and skipped over this part of the mail in the > commit above. I'll circle back on this tomorrow. > r1900561. I mostly copied from the old text describing why to do regular releases, while reusing the old rules what kind of backports should go into "lastest" and "older" releases. > >> Also, might want to explicitly spell out that 1.10 is now EOL: someone >> might think that 1.10 would be supported with security fixes until the >> LTS _after 1.14_ is released, as that would have been the case under our >> pre-1.11 policy if there hadn't been Regular releases at all. >> > > Did we reach consensus on this yet? Of course it follows the new policy, > on the other hand 1.10 predates even the fixed time release policy. > > >> Also, to answer your question in the OP, we'll want to remove 1.10 from >> the download page and from dist/release/. >> > > Will do, after some input on the point above. > > >> Cheers, >> >> Daniel >> >
