On Mon, Feb 2, 2026 at 11:47 AM Branko Čibej <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2. 2. 26 17:28, Johan Corveleyn wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 2, 2026 at 4:54 PM Evgeny Kotkov via > dev<[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: > > Daniel Sahlberg <[email protected]> <[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 > Yeah I feel bad rocking the boat because I previously thought 1.15 should be a regular release and my thinking has changed since then. tl;dr I think 1.15 should be a LTS release... My rationale previously (for a regular release) partly was a hope that we could iterate on the i525pod feature with things like finer grained control over pristines, changing store-pristine type without checking out another copy, etc, and partly in case we needed another wc format bump soon after. My thinking has changed because this coming May it will be 6 years since 1.14.0 was first released. If 1.15 is a regular release, we'll need to continue supporting 1.14, even after 1.15 becomes EOL, giving us two release lines to support in parallel. Making 1.15 the next LTS release allows us to drop support for 1.14 three months later. There are merged backports on the 1.14.x branch plus additional nominations, so we could try to make one more 1.14 release. I also remember the discussion about packagers' concerns and making 1.15 a LTS release should satisfy their concerns them as well. I could be persuaded to change my mind again and support 1.15 as a regular release if multiple devs want to work towards a 1.16 release for later this year, around August/September, and are reasonably confident that we'll be able to stay on schedule. Otherwise, I think we should make 1.15 the next LTS release. Cheers, Nathan
