Re: API review for 1.11; do we need to mark new APIs as experimental?

Julian Foad wrote on Wed, 19 Sep 2018 13:46 +0100:
> I have written my proposal and rationale at
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SVN/LTS+and+regular+releases

About LTS v. experimental: LTS promises shouldn't apply to experimental
API's; an experimental API is always covered by the support promises of
a non-LTS release, even when it appears in an LTS release.

Rationale: Experimental features are a moving target. We shouldn't tie
down our resources with supporting a 2-years-old prototype of some feature
that has since then been revised or removed.

---
That means our net promise for LTS releases would be: critical bugfixes
for: until the next release, for experimental APIs; two years or until
the next LTS, for everything else.  I think this reinforces the need for
experimental APIs to be exposed only on an opt-in basis.  They certainly
should be in a separate namespace and may also need some explicit opt-in
as discussed elsethread.
Cheers,
Daniel