On 14/11/2025 09:35, Piotr P. Karwasz wrote:
+1 on declaring Commons Lang 2.x EOL. We should have done this a long
time ago.
+1 for a "soft" EOL, i.e. users shouldn't expect any updates, but a
committer willing to push a release should be allowed to do it.
Without an *explicit* declaration, user expectations vary: some assume
any version not binary-compatible with the latest is unsupported, while
others expect a 14-year-old release to still be maintained. Since
`commons-logging` remained “supported” despite 9 years without a
release, those expectations aren’t unfounded. Personally, I prefer to
ask the maintainers [1] rather than make assumptions.
Commons Logging was inactive for 9 years, but it wasn't superseded by a
newer version, unlike Commons Lang 2.x/3.x.
I will start another thread on the general topic, but I think we
should provide a backport patch for this. I have not pushed a
release in a while, but I will rely on Gary's kind help to get this
done assuming others are amenable.
This is a slippery slope and we need *clear* rules. Some users have
already asked Commons to release `commons-lang3` 3.17.1 [6] because
their policy doesn’t allow upgrading to a new *minor* version.
That's not reasonable. We care a lot about binary compatibility,
sometimes it leads us to unpleasant compromises or design decisions. If
users adopt such policies that's their problem, we've done our homework.
Emmanuel Bourg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
