Adding to the point that Alexander mentioned, should we think about making the support cycle relative to the next release? I believe having 6 month support and 3 month release widows is to actually have a 3 month overlap. Should we formalize that instead of calling the support to be of 6 months? i.e. should the support of version 3.(x) be formalized to "upto 3 months post release of 3.(x + 1)" and likewise? For instance, currently, I am sure that barely anyone would have moved to pulsar 3.2 in their production systems and 3.1 is already EOL. Even in a super fast paced organization, upgrades do not happen so fast..
Regards On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 10:47 PM Frank Kelly <fke...@cogitocorp.com.invalid> wrote: > Lari, Matteo, Chris etc talked about this a good bit in the Community > meeting today. > What I was looking for and what seems that Matteo was amendable to was > adding a blurb here > https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#supported-versions > > saying something like > "Please plan according to these committed dates below. However, depending > on the availability of resources and time and/or the severity of an issue > (e.g. a very impactful CVE), some ad hoc releases may be possible going > back some number of patch releases but these would be provided on a > 'best-effort' basis." > > -Frank > > On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 12:56 PM Alexander Hall <ah...@teknoluxion.com> > wrote: > > > On a related note, according to the release policy page ( > > https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#supported-versions > ), > > the 3.1 branch only has ~16 more days of support. I'm hoping that 3.2.0 > > gets the green light for release before then, because we really didn't > get > > much of a support overlap between the 3.1 and 3.2 releases. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Alex > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Frank Kelly <fke...@cogitocorp.com.INVALID> > > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2024 10:44 AM > > To: dev@pulsar.apache.org > > Subject: '[External]'Re: [DISCUSS] 2.10 & 2.11 EOL - pulsar.apache.org > > website shows that support has ended > > > > [You don't often get email from fke...@cogitocorp.com.invalid. Learn why > > this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] > > > > Clarity around this would be useful as we just started the process of > > upgrading from 2.10.3 to 2.11.3 I know 3.0 now has LTS but I not hoping > to > > have to do another update for a while > > https://pulsar.apache.org/blog/2023/05/02/announcing-apache-pulsar-3-0/ > > > > Frank > > > > On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 6:11 AM Lari Hotari <lhot...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Bumping this thread to the top. We need to find a resolution. > > > > > > -Lari > > > > > > On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 at 11:13, Lari Hotari <lhot...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Our website shows that "active support" and "security support" has > > > > ended > > > on 11 Jan 2024 for 2.11 and on 18 Apr 2023 for 2.10 . You can find > > > this information in our release policy page at > > > > https://pulsar.apache.org/contribute/release-policy/#supported-versi > > > > ons > > > . > > > > > > > > Does this mean that the Apache Pulsar PMC won't be driving more new > > > releases for branch-2.11 and branch-2.10 ? Are there exceptions? > > > > Do we need to make a separate decision about 2.10 & 2.11 EOL ? > > > > > > > > -Lari > > > > > > > > On 2023/12/19 06:25:20 Michael Marshall wrote: > > > > > Hi Pulsar Community, > > > > > > > > > > Do we consider the 2.10 release line EOL? If not, is there a > > > > > committer that would like to volunteer to release 2.10.6? > > > > > > > > > > We briefly discussed keeping 2.10 alive in June [0], and that was > > > > > followed by a 2.10.5 release in July. Given that we already have > > > > > 2.11, 3.0, 3.1, and now a discussion on 3.2, it seems > > > > > unsustainable to keep > > > > > 2.10 going much longer. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > [0] > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/w4jzk27qhtosgsz7l9bmhf1t7o9mxjhp > > > > > > > > > > > -- Girish Sharma
