On 2. 2. 26 17:28, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2026 at 4:54 PM Evgeny Kotkov via dev
<[email protected]> wrote:
Daniel Sahlberg<[email protected]> writes:
First of all: Have we decided if 1.15 should be an LTS or a regular release?
I think it was suggested somewhere that it should be a non-LTS release in
case we find some major issues with the non-pristine code where we need a
new minor release.
As far as I can tell, the overall discussion leans towards making 1.15 a
regular release. So, if there are no objections, I plan to move forward
with that.
(Just in case, I'm also +1 to making 1.15 a regular release.)
ISTR that some packagers were not happy with our LTS vs. Regular
release system, because it was too much work for them to pick up such
a regular release if it wasn't supported for very long. So making this
a regular release which we might only support for 6 months might mean
that some packagers will ignore it. Not sure whether this is important
... just putting it out here.
Sorry, I can't find relevant threads right now (where actual packagers
chime in), but there was this discussion on dev@ [1] that contains
some relevant points. Though it's not clear to me what the actual
conclusion was.
[1]https://lists.apache.org/thread/prqv7gr1od4jpmxy670fxlq1gkc21zb5
I think this LTS/regular distinction made sense for ... a few months?
when there were enough active developers here to make it work. It would
be better to say, e.g., each release will be supported for X years, with
the current (N) and previous (N - 1) release always supported and the
N-2 release receiving critical bug fixes.
Not a formal specification but we used to have something like that and
it worked well enough.
-- Brane
