In light of this thread, I think we have a (lazy) consensus that 2.8 and 2.9 are EOL and we will continue to maintain 2.10.
Would someone be able to update the website to say that 2.10 is not EOL? I will update the GitHub labels to indicate the 2.9 label should no longer be used. Thanks, Michael On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 4:33 AM Yunze Xu <x...@apache.org> wrote: > > > This is the latest release that runs on JDK11 > > This point makes sense to me. Actually I think it's the latest release > that runs on JDK 8 though the recommended JDK for 2.10 is 11. The only > question from me is when should 2.10 be EOL? > > Thanks, > Yunze > > On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 3:15 PM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Micheal, > > > > Il giorno ven 9 giu 2023 alle ore 07:54 Michael Marshall > > <mmarsh...@apache.org> ha scritto: > > > > > > Hi Pulsar Community, > > > > > > I recently noticed this page on our website: > > > https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#supported-versions > > > > > > It shows that only 2.11 and 3.0 are active and security support. > > > > > > I am guessing the timelines were taken from a strict reading of PIP > > > 47. However, we haven't historically followed the EOL timelines for > > > PIP 47 strictly, so I want to check here. > > > > > > For 2.8, I think we should declare it EOL or perform once last release. > > > > I agree > > > > > > > > For 2.9, I think we could do the same as 2.8, but I am not sure if > > > that would surprise users. > > > > I am not sure, but as far as I know, 2.9 was kind of a transitional > > release, and I agree > > > > > > > > For 2.10, I think we should not consider it EOL. > > > > This is the latest release that runs on JDK11, we really cannot drop > > support for this. > > It would be worth declaring this LTS, as long as JDK11 is still widely used. > > > > This issue was discussed many times when we decided to move to JDK17 on > > 2.11. > > > > Cheers > > Enrico > > > > > > > > > > Let me know what you think. > > > > > > (Reminder: all feedback is welcome, especially from users!) > > > > > > Thanks! > > > Michael
