Hi Jeff, Thanks for the summary. I‘m absolutely fine (+1.5) with EOL of 1.x and announcing it via news entry on the project‘s website.
Personally speaking and given our current capacity, I see 2.x as LTS, as we‘re quickly heading towards 3.0.0 this year. What we should support / motivate external projects: Migrate to at least 2.5.x, that includes using UD-based models instead of SF ones. Maybe Kristians idea to blog about the project‘s new features and/changes could be helpful in that context too. Ideally, we‘d have a vote for the EOL of 1.x, so it has a binding character. But don’t know if it is strictly necessary. If you can trigger it, I‘d be happy. If lazy consensus is preferred: I‘m okay with it. Best Martin > > Am 28.07.2026 um 21:53 schrieb Jeff Zemerick <[email protected]>: > > Based on the previous messages and the thread's feedback, I propose > that we immediately EOL 1.x and not do another 1.x release. > > I am moving this forward under the lazy consensus model. If there are > no objections within the next 72 hours, this proposal will be > considered approved, and we will move forward as described above. > > If you have valid technical concerns or feel we need a formal vote > instead, please reply to this thread with your reasoning. > > Thanks, > Jeff > >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 3:28 PM Richard Zowalla <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Jeff, >> >> Yes - I think is basically the current summarization. You didn’t miss >> anything. >> >> (We have a CVE published with the last releases, which is also applicable >> for 1.x - so if LTS is on the table, it needs to get another release) >> >> Gruß >> Richard >> >>>> Am 28.07.2026 um 21:23 schrieb Jeff Zemerick <[email protected]>: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> It's been almost 3 weeks since the last message on this thread. I >>> think it's worth picking up and acting on. >>> >>> To summarize the discussion up to this point: >>> >>> * I see a few folks did a "+1" to the option A with a short grace >>> period, which we might could argue has already come and passed. >>> * Eric mentioned an LTS version that won't get new features but will >>> get security updates. >>> * Richard reframed it as a capacity problem and that OpenNLP has a >>> small team it's difficult to stay on top of older releases. >>> >>> Did I capture those points accurately? Did I miss any perspectives? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Jeff >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2026 at 9:29 AM Martin Wiesner <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> any other opinions / perspectives from the committers / PMC members? >>>> I’d like to encourage everyone to participate in this important discussion. >>>> >>>> Please share those within the next 1 or 2 weeks so we can find a consensus >>>> and come to a decision. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Martin >>>> -- >>>> >>>>> Am 20.06.2026 um 12:38 schrieb Kristian Rickert <[email protected]>: >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I agree with Richard's points. To add my two cents: >>>>> >>>>> It is increasingly important to keep software up to date. The higher >>>>> velocity required to patch CVEs today (which is a positive development) >>>>> results in significantly more churn when back-porting compared to the >>>>> past. >>>>> >>>>> I empathize with the time-consuming nature of updating libraries; this >>>>> empathy is reflected heavily in the 3.0 API. We implemented additional >>>>> code specifically to ensure the transition from version 2 to 3 is as >>>>> seamless as possible. We did this because we know maintaining backward >>>>> APIs is hard. >>>>> >>>>> Furthermore, it is typical for projects to EOL two versions back when >>>>> releasing a major version. This transition often happens even faster for >>>>> projects with heavy dependencies. >>>>> >>>>> If anyone has any issues transitioning off a 1.x build, they can try the >>>>> dev forums for help - I'm sure they'll find the guidance they need. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Kristian Rickert >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 1:52 PM Richard Zowalla <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In contrast to Solr, the OpenNLP community is very small, and backporting >>>>>> and maintaining different branches (3.x, 2.x, 1.x) is time consuming and >>>>>> honestly not much fun, unless you happen to have a day job that actually >>>>>> needs it. >>>>>> >>>>>> So from my POV this is really a volunteer-capacity question. Also for >>>>>> reviewing, testing and producing an actual release. >>>>>> >>>>>> If someone is willing to step up and do the work: fine. And consumers who >>>>>> still need 1.9.x are free to fork it, or take a patch-based approach >>>>>> (like >>>>>> it can be done via the TomEE patch plugin) to update the jars in place, >>>>>> especially if this is solely about satisfying CVE scanners and similar. >>>>>> We’ve been running an EOL policy in Apache TomEE for quite a while now, >>>>>> and >>>>>> so do Apache Storm and Apache Tomcat. I don't think maintaining versions >>>>>> endlessly is a good thing (at least from a volunteer capacity side of >>>>>> things; you can still wrap around a business model . >>>>>> >>>>>> What happens when the next transitive CVE shows up in a lib that itself >>>>>> is >>>>>> no longer patched? From my experience, that just gets cumbersome. >>>>>> >>>>>> We had that scenario in TomEE 9.x once Tomcat 10.0.x went EOL pretty >>>>>> fast; >>>>>> so I was back porting Tomcat patches and patching inline for quite a few >>>>>> months (wasn’t fun at all). >>>>>> >>>>>> In a perfect world with lots of people willing to do the work: fine. But >>>>>> that doesn't apply to the current OpenNLP community IMHO, or at least >>>>>> not >>>>>> yet. >>>>>> >>>>>> Richard >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Am 19.06.2026 um 16:14 schrieb Eric Pugh < >>>>>> [email protected]>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am not a committer, but I’d leave towards leaving it open ended if the >>>>>> tooling to produce a release remains working. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think EOL is very important to convey “hey, we no longer can produce a >>>>>> release” or “we no longer have the in house knowledge to maintain this”, >>>>>> but if the release process is still manageable, and people aren’t trying >>>>>> to >>>>>> jam in NEW FEATURES into 1.x, then I don’t see why you need to close it >>>>>> off. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am very appreciative of the 1.9.5 coming out, and I would hope that if >>>>>> more CVE’s pop up, being able to publish a 1.9.6 would be great. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What if, and this is just an idea, you reframed things? Instead of >>>>>> talking about EOL, what if you talked about LTS: Long Term Support. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1.9 is our LTS. If a CVE pops up, you can expect a 1.9.6 or 1.9.7. >>>>>> There will never be a 1.10 with new features. All new features will go >>>>>> to OpenNLP 3. We reserve the right to decide when 1.9 line is no longer >>>>>> LTS. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My experience in Solr is that there is a HUGE set of people who are >>>>>> happy with their specific solution, and won’t ever upgrade till there is >>>>>> a >>>>>> big event. For them, knowing they are on a LTS version, and knowing that >>>>>> it can be produced reasonably easily, seems like a win-win for everyone. >>>>>> When 1.9.x becomes a pain to release, then call the LTS period “done”. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I wrote down some specifics that I haven’t actually shared with the Solr >>>>>> community yet, but here you go: >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/17qJIfbSoRYvwrPt5OWjqmliwghflDzV9fA0XmXmNSBE/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Eric >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jun 18, 2026, at 12:39 PM, Kristian Rickert <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> a) +1 >>>>>>>> b) I'd lean on a short grace period. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2026 at 11:52 PM Richard Zowalla <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> a) +1 >>>>>>>>> b) b2/b3 (if other CVEs are approaching) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Examples: https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-9.0.x-eos.html < >>>>>> https://tomcat.apache.org/tomcat-9.0.x-eos.html> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Am 18.06.2026 um 05:23 schrieb Martin Wiesner <[email protected]>: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> given recent security fixes that landed in OpenNLP's main branch and >>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> request for back porting these changes to the very oldskoolish 1.9.x >>>>>> line >>>>>>>>> [1], the people involved noticed that the efforts to maintain three >>>>>>>>> separate version lines along the road were pretty high and resource >>>>>>>>> consuming. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Therefore, I'd like to propose to (finally) declare Apache OpenNLP >>>>>> 1.9.x >>>>>>>>> EOL publicly via a News announcement on the project's website. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Primary questions: >>>>>>>>>> (a) Do we have consensus that such an EOL announcement is long >>>>>>>>>> overdue >>>>>>>>> and should be put out rather soonish? >>>>>>>>>> (b) Time of the announcement: Options that I see: >>>>>>>>>> - b1: Directly with the projected release of the 1.9.5, marking it as >>>>>>>>> the last release ever to be expected for OpenNLP 1.x. >>>>>>>>>> - b2: Shortly after - with a grace period - for instance End of July >>>>>>>>> 2026, or similar short ranged targets. >>>>>>>>>> - b3: End of year 2026, that is Dec 31, 2026 >>>>>>>>>> (c) Are there any requirements by the ASF to put out an EOL >>>>>>>>> announcement? Jeff, do you have infos about it? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Open for others to add thoughts and related aspects to this >>>>>> discussion. >>>>>>>>>> Please share your opinions and provide (your) answers to question (a) >>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> (c). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>>>> Martin | mawiesne >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/nvzl4g2b6rc149nf54xpnorjso5h0mlp >>>>>> <https://lists.apache.org/thread/nvzl4g2b6rc149nf54xpnorjso5h0mlp> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Disclaimer >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The information contained in this communication from the sender is >>>>>> confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others >>>>>> authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby >>>>>> notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in >>>>>> relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and >>>>>> may >>>>>> be unlawful. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been >>>>>> automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email security and cyber >>>>>> resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection, >>>>>> security awareness training, web security, compliance and other essential >>>>>> capabilities. Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from >>>>>> malicious activity, human error and technology failure; and to lead the >>>>>> movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit >>>>>> our website. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>
