Den mån 2 maj 2022 23:01Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> skrev:
> Daniel Sahlberg wrote on Mon, 02 May 2022 20:12 +00:00: > > Thanks to everyone for discussing this and moving it forward! I'm sorry I > > wasn't able to be more active last week but life got in the way. > > > > One small point below... > > > > Den lör 30 apr. 2022 kl 00:04 skrev <danie...@apache.org>: > > [...] > > > >> +<li><p>LTS releases are supported for <b>four years</b> from the date > of > >> their > >> +initial release. For instance, 1.15.x will supported until four years > >> after > >> +the announcement of 1.15.0.</p> > >> > > > > Should we really declare 1.15 an LTS release at this stage? > > No. Deciding whether 1.15 should be LTS or Regular deserves a thread of > its own. As far as this thread is concerned, the documentation should > reflect the status quo: that it has not been decided yet whether 1.15 > will be LTS or Regular. > > Good catch. > > If someone could please update the text staging/ that would be great. > r1900528 > > I would also suggest to remove the "Transition to LTS and Regular > > Releases" > > section ( > > > https://subversion-staging.apache.org/roadmap.html#transition-lts-regular-releases > ) > > since it seems to concern the fixed-time release schedule. I can do > > this, > > just wanting to check that I don't missread something. > > The description of what we backport is "general backports and thereafter > high priority fixes" in this section, and "high priority issues such as > … and sometimes also other issues" in the section above. We might want > to clarify the "other issues" part of the latter sentence when we delete > this section. > Oh. I read this too quick and skipped over this part of the mail in the commit above. I'll circle back on this tomorrow. > Also, might want to explicitly spell out that 1.10 is now EOL: someone > might think that 1.10 would be supported with security fixes until the > LTS _after 1.14_ is released, as that would have been the case under our > pre-1.11 policy if there hadn't been Regular releases at all. > Did we reach consensus on this yet? Of course it follows the new policy, on the other hand 1.10 predates even the fixed time release policy. > Also, to answer your question in the OP, we'll want to remove 1.10 from > the download page and from dist/release/. > Will do, after some input on the point above. > Cheers, > > Daniel >
