Den mån 4 okt. 2021 kl 18:26 skrev Mark Phippard <markp...@gmail.com>:
> On Oct 4, 2021, at 12:00 PM, Nathan Hartman <hartman.nat...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 11:44 AM Mark Phippard <markp...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 11:24 AM Daniel Sahlberg > >>> <daniel.l.sahlb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> If "only providing outdated versions" is a reason for de-listing then > sadly both CollabNet and WANdisco should go (at least when 1.10 is EOL). I > can edit the website but I'd appreciate if anyone else in PMC would give > their opinion on policy. > >> > >> My recommendation is we discuss and create a policy, add it to the > >> page and then we can enforce it. I would expect the policy would be > >> related to providing our LTS version and the only question is whether > >> we want to require the latest LTS version be made available or just > >> that one of our still supported LTS versions is available. Perhaps the > >> latter could be an exception if there is some OS that cannot support a > >> newer LTS for some reason. > > > > Some websites have a link to "older releases" which are listed on a > > separate page. Instead of removing mention of binaries, we could move > > them to a separate page (called "older 3rd party binaries" rather than > > "older releases" since they're not our binaries). That page could have > > a prominent note about the disadvantages of running older unsupported > > releases, but leave the choice in the user's hands. Thoughts? > > My suggestion would be that we start simple (for us) and say that we want > anyone listed to provide the latest available LTS version in order to be > listed. > > Then as we get requests to add packages back in we can discuss the > exceptions and why we should allow them. One exception I think we should > make would be Linux/BSD distros. Where we just are showing the commands to > install the package for a distro I do not think we should bother getting > involved with what version that distro is providing. That said ... if > someone thinks we should just not list them if they only provide an old > version then I am OK with that too. I think the policies should mainly > apply to when we are linking to some external download page. > Thanks Mark for your excellent background information. I second Mark's suggestion that we should only list those providing recent versions. Would this be a reasonable definition: "Any software listed should provide the latest bugfix of any supported version", where "version" is 1.10, 1.14 etc. I realise this would rule out both WANdisco and CollabNet immediately since they don't provide the latest bugfix release. We could delay implementing the policy until april next year (when 1.10 is out of support). Kind regards, Daniel Sahlberg
