Hi JB, Preferring "active" and not using the EOL term sounds good!
Cheers, Dmitri. On Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 8:49 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Generally speaking, EOL doesn’t strictly exist for Apache projects, as > anyone can propose a new release on older branches if necessary. > > While some projects do use the EOL terminology, I would prefer focusing on > "active" branches. This allows us to maintain the flexibility to perform > new releases on older branches on demand for cases like CVEs or migrations. > > I agree with the general approach, but I suggest using "active branches" > rather than "EOL" in our wording. > > Regards, > JB > > Le mar. 3 mars 2026 à 08:42, Alexandre Dutra <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > Hi all, > > > > While working on the web site lately I noticed that it had some > > tooling to distinguish between "active" and "end-of-life" (EOL) > > releases. The tooling wasn't effective until recently, and while > > working on the Documentation [1] and Downloads/Releases [2] sections, > > I started to make the distinction visible. > > > > The visual intent is simple: highlight "active" releases (both > > documentation and downloads) while limiting the display of old items > > to prevent cluttering dropdown menus and sidebars with outdated > > information that tend to accumulate over time. > > > > But we'd need to establish an official policy for defining which > > releases are supported and which have reached EOL. > > > > Currently, my simple, informal approach considers the latest bugfix > > versions across the three most recent minor releases as "active." This > > currently includes versions 1.3.0, 1.2.0, and 1.1.0. > > > > Other approaches are obviously possible. It also depends a lot on the > > release cadence. I'd appreciate your input and thoughts on > > establishing a formal policy for this. > > > > Thanks, > > Alex > > > > [1]: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3876 > > [2]: https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/3902 > > >
