Sounds good to me. Would you be okay if we put in an estimated EOL date for ones that haven't released EOL? I assume so. As a rule of thumb, I figure we can when we put up the first micro, set that final to say 4 years in future or lower?
And then change it as needed once as we get closer to that date. Thanks, Regina > -----Original Message----- > From: geos-devel [mailto:geos-devel-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of > Paul Ramsey > Sent: Monday, September 12, 2022 1:57 PM > To: GEOS Development List <geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org> > Subject: Re: [geos-devel] End of Life Policy (EOL) > > Final release is pretty Boss. It kind of nicely makes the policy clear w/o having > to wade through a bunch of text and then do mental math to answer the > question "is this EOL" and "when will this EOL". > > > > > On Sep 12, 2022, at 10:55 AM, Regina Obe <l...@pcorp.us> wrote: > > > > Here is my first pass at a policy. > > > > https://libgeos.org/development/rfcs/rfc11/ > > > > If people are agreeable with it, I can put a link to it on the > > download page -- https://libgeos.org/usage/download/ > > > > I was also thinking we should put the First Release date on this pages to > make it easier to do the math of how old a minor release is. > > I think having a Final Release column might be going too far, though other > projects do that. > > > > > > > > From: geos-devel [mailto:geos-devel-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf > > Of Kurt Schwehr > > Sent: Monday, September 12, 2022 12:23 PM > > To: GEOS Development List <geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org> > > Subject: Re: [geos-devel] End of Life Policy (EOL) > > > > Regina, > > > > Thank you! This will be a topic of discussion at the NumFocus funded > projects later this month where I will be representing GDAL. I will be keeping > an eye on the RFC and this thread for aspects that should be discussed at the > meeting. > > > > -kurt > > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 9:19 AM Regina Obe <l...@pcorp.us> wrote: > >> That works for me :) > >> > >> So I'll draft up an RFC to that effect. So just to be clear, that > >> leaves space open to: > >> > >> We may put an update on such a release like 3.4 to the 3.4 branch but > >> we will not bother tagging it. > >> > >> I'm not going to say that of course, just saying we are okay with that. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Regina > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: geos-devel [mailto:geos-devel-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On > >> > Behalf Of Paul Ramsey > >> > Sent: Monday, September 12, 2022 11:37 AM > >> > To: GEOS Development List <geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org> > >> > Subject: Re: [geos-devel] End of Life Policy (EOL) > >> > > >> > As long as the word "support" does not appear in the text. Perhaps > >> > "will > >> not > >> > have any further numbered releases" is more correct than "not > supported". > >> > > >> > P > >> > > >> > > On Sep 12, 2022, at 8:34 AM, Regina Obe <l...@pcorp.us> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > I'm thinking simple fixes and serious security bugs. > >> > > > >> > > I think it's a given we won't break our backs to fix a particular > >> > > bug if it is deemed "De-stabilizing". > >> > > By De-stabilizing, I'm thinking enough code to risk causing a > >> > > particular bigger issue. Pretty much the same policy we have in > >> > > PostGIS > >> > no? > >> > > > >> > > But by saying EOL we are saying we will absolutely NEVER push > >> > > fixes to > >> it. > >> > > > >> > > If some corporate paying customer is running something as crazy > >> > > as 3.4, you should just fork that for them and patch it there and > >> > > deal with their upgrade issues some other day. > >> > > > >> > > Thanks, > >> > > Regina > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> > >> From: geos-devel [mailto:geos-devel-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On > >> > >> Behalf Of Paul Ramsey > >> > >> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2022 11:20 AM > >> > >> To: GEOS Development List <geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org> > >> > >> Subject: Re: [geos-devel] End of Life Policy (EOL) > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Sep 12, 2022, at 8:12 AM, Regina Obe <l...@pcorp.us> wrote: > >> > >>> > >> > >>> I'd like to make an RFC proposing a standardish End of Like > >> > >>> Policy > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Does anyone have an issue with that? > >> > >> > >> > >> Only insofar as there's this idea that we support any particular > >> > >> version > >> > > at all. > >> > >> Honestly, there are some bugs I just cannot be bothered to try > >> > >> and fix (anything overlay pre 3.9, right? the fix there is to > >> > >> upgrade) but at the > >> > > same > >> > >> time, I don't really mind pulling back trivial stuff pretty far. > >> > >> What does > >> > > it mean > >> > >> to "support" this stuff anyways? Comes right down to it, if a > >> > >> paying > >> > > customer > >> > >> on 3.4 has an issue and is unable to upgrade, we'll break our > >> > >> fingers to > >> > > try and > >> > >> fix it. But that has to do with our corporate support, not some > >> > >> community commitment to support. > >> > >> > >> > >> ??? > >> > >> > >> > >> P > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> I'm thinking of a policy along the lines of > >> > >>> > >> > >>> We support a release generally at most X plus years after the > >> > >>> first version of it, but we have discretion to increase that if needed. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> X = 3 - 5 feels about right. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> How do people feel about that? > >> > >>> > >> > >>> If so I can draft up an RFC about that and we can edit if we > >> > >>> are comfortable with that and start EOL'ing other releases > >> > >>> besides the > >> > >>> 3.5 I > >> > >> recently EOL'd. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Thanks, > >> > >>> Regina > >> > >>> > >> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >> > >>> geos-devel mailing list > >> > >>> geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org > >> > >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> > >> geos-devel mailing list > >> > >> geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org > >> > >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel > >> > > > >> > > _______________________________________________ > >> > > geos-devel mailing list > >> > > geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org > >> > > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > geos-devel mailing list > >> > geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org > >> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> geos-devel mailing list > >> geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org > >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel > > _______________________________________________ > > geos-devel mailing list > > geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org > > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel > > _______________________________________________ > geos-devel mailing list > geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel _______________________________________________ geos-devel mailing list geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel