Nathan Hartman wrote on Thu, 28 Dec 2017 23:50 -0500:
> On Dec 28, 2017, at 5:59 PM, Stefan <luke1410_at_posteo.de> wrote:
> >
> > Suggestion for a different phrasing:
> >
> > section id: svn-1.9-old-stable
> >
> > The Subversion 1.9.x line is now the old stable version. This means
> > that 1.9.x will still receive security relevant fixes as well as
> > bugfixes. While we will evaluate any bugreport with regards to its
> > severity, there might be issues with a lower severity which will
> > only get fixed in 1.10.x (this especially applies to issues which
> > would require API additions/changes and/or require a significant
> > investment to get backported to the old stable version).
> >
> > Therefore, if you are running into an issue with the old stable
> > version which has already been fixed in the latest version, we might
> > ask you to upgrade to that version to resolve the issue.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Stefan
> >
>
> Just chiming in here. As a user, Stefan's suggested text makes sense,
> sounds reasonable from both a dev and a user point of view, and is far
> less scary sounding than "deprecated" or "doomed" -- yes I know the
> other text said it's NOT doomed, but nevertheless!!! :-)
+1
I'd just suggest to change "require API changes/additions" to "be
destabilizing".
@Nathan the language about "doomed" is copied from the 1.8 section of
the 1.10 release notes; if it's scary then perhaps that paragraph should
change too.
Cheers,
Daniel
Received on 2017-12-29 07:12:42 CET