On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 2:17 PM Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> Mark Phippard wrote on Fri, 01 May 2020 11:49 -0400:
> > On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 12:47 PM Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > danielsh_at_apache.org wrote on Thu, 30 Apr 2020 16:21 -0000:
> > > > +++ subversion/site/publish/docs/release-notes/1.14.html Thu Apr 30
> > > 16:21:48 2020
> > > > @@ -1330,6 +1330,20 @@ if they occur.</p>
> > > > +<div class="h3" id="svn-1.13-deprecation">
> > > > +<h3>Subversion 1.13.x is end of life
> > > > + <a class="sectionlink" href="#svn-1.13-deprecation"
> > > > + title="Link to this section">¶</a>
> > > > +</h3>
> > > > +
> > > > +<p>The Subversion 1.13.x line is end of life (<abbr title="End Of
> > > Life">EOL</abbr>).
> > > > +This doesn't mean that your 1.13 installation is doomed; if it works
> > > > +well and is all you need, that's fine. "End of life" just means
> we've
> > > > +stopped accepting bug reports against 1.13.x versions, and will not
> > > > +make any more 1.13.x releases.</p>
> > >
> > > I just copied the text we use for 1.9, but there's a distinction: users
> > > of 1.9 have had time to upgrade to 1.10 before 1.14.0 becomes GA,
> > > whereas users of 1.13 have not. So, should we promise some sort of
> > > grace period for users of 1.13.x — i.e., a period following the release
> > > of 1.14.0 during which we'll still fix security bugs in 1.13.0?
> > >
> > > Granted, 1.13 was a regular release and was only promised to be
> > > supported for six months (or until 1.14.0) in the first place, so the
> > > grace period needn't be long.
> > >
> >
> > My recollection is that we gave 1.9 special treatment because 1.10 was
> the
> > first release with the new LTS policy in place. So we said we would
> handle
> > 1.9 the same way we would have prior to the new policy. I do not see any
> > reason to give 1.13 special treatment. We created the LTS policy and we
> > should plan on sticking to it. It is not like we do not have the option
> of
> > doing whatever we want when and if a security issue actually crops up.
>
> I'm not asking for special treatment or for changing the policy. I'm
> asking to clarify the policy for the general case of the period of time
> immediately following a 1.(x+1).0 release, where the 1.x line was a
> non-LTS release. (In this specific instance x+1 is an LTS release, but
> that's a red herring.)
>
The way I read and understood the policy the support is time based. A
regular release is supported for 6 months from its initial release date or
until the next release is available. If the next release came out 5 months
later then it would still get 6 months of support. If the next release
came out 9 months later then it would get 9 months of support.
Since we reached the 6 month mark for 1.13 yesterday, that means its
support will continue until 1.14 is released at which point it is EOL.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
Received on 2020-05-01 20:26:32 CEST