Nathan Hartman wrote on Thu, 28 Dec 2017 23:50 -0500: > On Dec 28, 2017, at 5:59 PM, Stefan <luke1...@posteo.de> wrote: > > > > Suggestion for a different phrasing: > > > > section id: svn-1.9-old-stable > > > > The Subversion 1.9.x line is now the old stable version. This means > > that 1.9.x will still receive security relevant fixes as well as > > bugfixes. While we will evaluate any bugreport with regards to its > > severity, there might be issues with a lower severity which will > > only get fixed in 1.10.x (this especially applies to issues which > > would require API additions/changes and/or require a significant > > investment to get backported to the old stable version). > > > > Therefore, if you are running into an issue with the old stable > > version which has already been fixed in the latest version, we might > > ask you to upgrade to that version to resolve the issue. > > > > Regards, > > Stefan > > > > Just chiming in here. As a user, Stefan's suggested text makes sense, > sounds reasonable from both a dev and a user point of view, and is far > less scary sounding than "deprecated" or "doomed" -- yes I know the > other text said it's NOT doomed, but nevertheless!!! :-)
+1 I'd just suggest to change "require API changes/additions" to "be destabilizing". @Nathan the language about "doomed" is copied from the 1.8 section of the 1.10 release notes; if it's scary then perhaps that paragraph should change too. Cheers, Daniel
