Den mån 16 feb. 2026 kl 17:28 skrev Evgeny Kotkov via dev <
[email protected]>:
> Hi all,
>
> During the recent discussion about releasing Subversion 1.15, several
> issues
> with our current LTS/regular release policy [1] were highlighted [2].
>
> Building on Brane's suggestion, Nathan and I have drafted a definition for
> an
> updated release policy to resolve the issues. Namely, it should:
>
> - Encourage packagers to pick up new releases, instead of postponing
> adoption
> until the next LTS release.
> - Address the problem that we might not have enough resources for a steady
> rate of non-empty regular releases every 6 months.
> - Allow us to not have to decide whether 1.15 should be a regular or an LTS
> release, given that both of them have downsides after a long break in our
> release cycle.
> - Return us to a proven model that worked well in the past.
>
> The policy is defined as follows:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Starting with 1.15, all release lines are supported for at least 3 years.
> At least one release line is always supported.
>
> A release line becomes EOL when the following conditions are met
> simultaneously:
> - It has been supported for at least 3 years.
> - There is a new minor release line with an age of at least 3 months.
>
> Among the supported release lines:
> - The latest release line ("N") receives full support.
> - Other release lines (N-1, N-2, …) receive security-only support and
> critical bugfixes, e.g., related to data corruption.
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> While I believe there's rough consensus about it, I want to make sure this
> change receives appropriate attention.
>
> Personally, I am +1 to moving forward with this policy for 1.15 and later
> releases.
>
I would have suggested to support the previous release for 6 month instead
of 3 (to make sure any distributions with a twice-per-year release policy
have a chance to pick up the new minor release), but I would not stand in
way of consensus.
+1 from me as well.
Thanks for suggesting this!
Cheers,
Daniel
>
> [1]: https://subversion.apache.org/roadmap.html#release-planning
> [2]: https://lists.apache.org/thread/bh3dyv100qlkwgb76lwdw91yrk24ndxg
>
>
> Thanks,
> Evgeny Kotkov
>
