Hi, At Apache, a strong EOL/LTS policy doesn't really exist: anyone can cut a new release on a very old branch as soon as it's voted by at least three binding votes.
That said, a lot of Apache projects have EOL/LTS policy defined in the project: - for instance Apache Camel has LTS branches (https://camel.apache.org/download/) - Apache Karaf talks more about active/non active branches defining which branches are still "maintained/active" (https://karaf.apache.org/download.html) I think it would be good to have EOL/LTS details for Iceberg in https://iceberg.apache.org/releases/. Before that, we should have a consensus about the policy :) Correct me if I'm wrong, but we have only "one active branch" which is basically main (where we cut releases). Do we plan to have multiple active branches (for instance 1.3.x and 1.4.x) ? Do we plan to flag some releases at LTS ? Regards JB On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 8:08 PM Yufei Gu <flyrain...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi folks, > > I was thinking about how we handle the Iceberg releases, and it seems that we > don't currently have a clear EOL (End of Life) strategy in place. At least, > we don't specify an EOL timeline for our releases on our official page > (https://iceberg.apache.org/releases). I believe it would be helpful for our > users if we could indicate when a particular release will no longer be > supported or receive updates. > > What do you think about setting up an EOL policy? We could go for a > vote-based approach or have a fixed lifecycle for each release. Either way, > this could help our users plan their upgrades and keep their systems updated > more effectively. > > Looking forward to hearing your thoughts! > > Best, > > Yufei
