On Sat, Feb 28, 2026 at 11:16 AM Daniel Sahlberg < [email protected]> wrote:
> Den fre 27 feb. 2026 kl 18:42 skrev Michael Osipov <[email protected]>: > >> On 2026/02/16 16:27:00 Evgeny Kotkov via dev wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > During the recent discussion about releasing Subversion 1.15, several >> issues >> > with our current LTS/regular release policy [1] were highlighted [2]. >> > >> > Building on Brane's suggestion, Nathan and I have drafted a definition >> for an >> > updated release policy to resolve the issues. Namely, it should: >> > >> > - Encourage packagers to pick up new releases, instead of postponing >> adoption >> > until the next LTS release. >> > - Address the problem that we might not have enough resources for a >> steady >> > rate of non-empty regular releases every 6 months. >> > - Allow us to not have to decide whether 1.15 should be a regular or an >> LTS >> > release, given that both of them have downsides after a long break in >> our >> > release cycle. >> > - Return us to a proven model that worked well in the past. >> > >> > The policy is defined as follows: >> > >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > Starting with 1.15, all release lines are supported for at least 3 >> years. >> > At least one release line is always supported. >> > >> > A release line becomes EOL when the following conditions are met >> > simultaneously: >> > - It has been supported for at least 3 years. >> > - There is a new minor release line with an age of at least 3 months. >> > >> > Among the supported release lines: >> > - The latest release line ("N") receives full support. >> > - Other release lines (N-1, N-2, …) receive security-only support and >> > critical bugfixes, e.g., related to data corruption. >> >> As the FreeBSD port maintainer I'd like to rephrase it from my PoV: We >> have currently two ports: >> devel/subversion >> devel/subversion-lts >> while devel/subversion being the default. >> >> From my understanding from 1.15 this will not be required anymore and >> there will be more or less one permanent LTS release and I should fold both >> into devel/subversion? >> >> Michael >> > > Hi Michael, > > Your understanding is correct. We may of course end up supporting more > than one release at the same time (let's say 1.16 is released one year > after 1.15, then both will be supported for two years). > > Without me fully understanding the FreeBSD port system it does seem like a > good idea to merge them - the -lts designation won't make any sense. > > Cheers, > Daniel > If the -lts port disappears, what happens when users who installed it try to update their systems? Would they stop receiving updates, unaware that updates may be available? If so, is there a possibility of the -lts port becoming an alias for the non-lts port (assuming there is such a mechanism in the FreeBSD ports system) so that users will have continuity? > Thanks, Nathan
