Hi Enrico, Thank you for starting this conversation. I have been meaning to follow up on this topic for some time, so I already have some thoughts to share.
Based on my interpretation of PIP-47 [0], we committed to support each minor release for a year after its initial release. We created tag "v2.6.0" on June, 17th 2020, so we can technically stop releasing patch updates for 2.6. There has only been one commit (a bug fix) to branch-2.6 since the 2.6.4 release. My preference is to say that 2.6 has already reached its EOL, but if we think the EOL wasn't communicated clearly enough, we could of course do one final patch release. We created tag "v2.7.0" on November, 30th 2020, so I think it deserves at least one more patch release. Moving forward, I would like to see our versioning policy added to the website to ensure that users can plan accordingly. Our current policy is only published in a PIP, and it isn't explicitly defined for each minor version. In my opinion, the best way to communicate our EOL policy is to add a table with specific version EOL dates to our Pulsar website. I will follow up this week with a PR to add a versioning policy table to the website. Thanks, Michael [0] - https://github.com/apache/pulsar/wiki/PIP-47%3A-Time-Based-Release-Plan#what-is-our-eol-policy [1] - https://lists.apache.org/x/thread.html/ra2db06e8da85bff67d8d588dc1e93d965f2e1d70c95bda2f08d14138@%3Cdev.pulsar.apache.org%3E [2] - https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/10829 On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 3:26 AM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello folks, > It has been quite some time since the latest releases of branch 2.6 and 2.7. > > We should cut a release. > > Probably we should also start a discussion about sending 2.6 to EOL as we > are releasing 2.9.0. > > I am following the release for 2.9, > is there any volunteer to drive a release for 2.7 and one for 2.6 ? > > Enrico
