I agree with Girish. With the various security issues that the 3.1.x branch has had, I'm sure some people are still deploying 3.1.2 as well.
Thank You, -Alex H -----Original Message----- From: Girish Sharma <scrapmachi...@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2024 8:45 AM To: dev@pulsar.apache.org Subject: '[External]'Re: [DISCUSS] 2.10 & 2.11 EOL - pulsar.apache.org website shows that support has ended [You don't often get email from *REDACTED*. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Adding to the point that Alexander mentioned, should we think about making the support cycle relative to the next release? I believe having 6 month support and 3 month release widows is to actually have a 3 month overlap. Should we formalize that instead of calling the support to be of 6 months? i.e. should the support of version 3.(x) be formalized to "upto 3 months post release of 3.(x + 1)" and likewise? For instance, currently, I am sure that barely anyone would have moved to pulsar 3.2 in their production systems and 3.1 is already EOL. Even in a super fast paced organization, upgrades do not happen so fast.. Regards On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 10:47 PM Frank Kelly <fke...@cogitocorp.com.invalid> wrote: > Lari, Matteo, Chris etc talked about this a good bit in the Community > meeting today. > What I was looking for and what seems that Matteo was amendable to was > adding a blurb here > https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpuls > ar.apache.org%2Fcontribute%2Frelease-policy%2F%23supported-versions&da > ta=05%7C02%7Cahall%40teknoluxion.com%7Cb629cdfb9e064886907308dc2c9a062 > 5%7Cfcceb892218c4d6f9e27223a522b9791%7C0%7C0%7C638434287260025292%7CUn > known%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haW > wiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=d9LkzXjtyAkZm8bedYB1A5gycw6lSZkBuk > nCZUZnCnU%3D&reserved=0 > > saying something like > "Please plan according to these committed dates below. However, > depending on the availability of resources and time and/or the > severity of an issue (e.g. a very impactful CVE), some ad hoc releases > may be possible going back some number of patch releases but these > would be provided on a 'best-effort' basis." > > -Frank > > On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 12:56 PM Alexander Hall > <ah...@teknoluxion.com> > wrote: > > > On a related note, according to the release policy page ( > > https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpu > > lsar.apache.org%2Fcontribute%2Frelease-policy%2F%23supported-version > > s&data=05%7C02%7Cahall%40teknoluxion.com%7Cb629cdfb9e064886907308dc2 > > c9a0625%7Cfcceb892218c4d6f9e27223a522b9791%7C0%7C0%7C638434287260035 > > 294%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJB > > TiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=0TIf2krl6kb2axLPIJisb3 > > EGOCAbMpGZ4ZM3hB91ffU%3D&reserved=0 > ), > > the 3.1 branch only has ~16 more days of support. I'm hoping that > > 3.2.0 gets the green light for release before then, because we > > really didn't > get > > much of a support overlap between the 3.1 and 3.2 releases. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Alex > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Frank Kelly <fke...@cogitocorp.com.INVALID> > > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2024 10:44 AM > > To: dev@pulsar.apache.org > > Subject: '[External]'Re: [DISCUSS] 2.10 & 2.11 EOL - > > pulsar.apache.org website shows that support has ended > > > > [You don't often get email from *REDACTED* Learn > > why this is important at > > https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] > > > > Clarity around this would be useful as we just started the process > > of upgrading from 2.10.3 to 2.11.3 I know 3.0 now has LTS but I not > > hoping > to > > have to do another update for a while > > https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpu > > lsar.apache.org%2Fblog%2F2023%2F05%2F02%2Fannouncing-apache-pulsar-3 > > -0%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cahall%40teknoluxion.com%7Cb629cdfb9e06488690730 > > 8dc2c9a0625%7Cfcceb892218c4d6f9e27223a522b9791%7C0%7C0%7C63843428726 > > 0042460%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIi > > LCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=TUM%2FJMvruEWreiBa > > 19nc0O768TS8Kd0FjqEgenNNVMY%3D&reserved=0 > > > > Frank > > > > On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 6:11 AM Lari Hotari <lhot...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Bumping this thread to the top. We need to find a resolution. > > > > > > -Lari > > > > > > On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 at 11:13, Lari Hotari <lhot...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Our website shows that "active support" and "security support" > > > > has ended > > > on 11 Jan 2024 for 2.11 and on 18 Apr 2023 for 2.10 . You can find > > > this information in our release policy page at > > > > https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F% > > > > 2Fpulsar.apache.org%2Fcontribute%2Frelease-policy%2F%23supported > > > > -versi&data=05%7C02%7Cahall%40teknoluxion.com%7Cb629cdfb9e064886 > > > > 907308dc2c9a0625%7Cfcceb892218c4d6f9e27223a522b9791%7C0%7C0%7C63 > > > > 8434287260048323%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJ > > > > QIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=D > > > > kf5FFdJ%2FRptnwYQ%2Fbv34IyBm%2B2%2Fb7aYfoG5d9jY1Hg%3D&reserved=0 > > > > ons > > > . > > > > > > > > Does this mean that the Apache Pulsar PMC won't be driving more > > > > new > > > releases for branch-2.11 and branch-2.10 ? Are there exceptions? > > > > Do we need to make a separate decision about 2.10 & 2.11 EOL ? > > > > > > > > -Lari > > > > > > > > On 2023/12/19 06:25:20 Michael Marshall wrote: > > > > > Hi Pulsar Community, > > > > > > > > > > Do we consider the 2.10 release line EOL? If not, is there a > > > > > committer that would like to volunteer to release 2.10.6? > > > > > > > > > > We briefly discussed keeping 2.10 alive in June [0], and that > > > > > was followed by a 2.10.5 release in July. Given that we > > > > > already have 2.11, 3.0, 3.1, and now a discussion on 3.2, it > > > > > seems unsustainable to keep > > > > > 2.10 going much longer. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > [0] > > > > > https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2 > > > > > F%2Flists.apache.org%2Fthread%2Fw4jzk27qhtosgsz7l9bmhf1t7o9mxj > > > > > hp&data=05%7C02%7Cahall%40teknoluxion.com%7Cb629cdfb9e06488690 > > > > > 7308dc2c9a0625%7Cfcceb892218c4d6f9e27223a522b9791%7C0%7C0%7C63 > > > > > 8434287260053512%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiL > > > > > CJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sda > > > > > ta=JOkCEXf5Fz7lifaqAip3u%2BfcKuCxBsfal0%2BxZ%2Br6qx4%3D&reserv > > > > > ed=0 > > > > > > > > > > > -- Girish Sharma
