> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 5:28 PM Evgeny Kotkov via dev > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > [1]: https://subversion.apache.org/roadmap.html#release-planning > > [2]: https://lists.apache.org/thread/bh3dyv100qlkwgb76lwdw91yrk24ndxg > > > > > > Thanks, > > Evgeny Kotkov
+1 I think Daniel's suggestion (changing 3 months to 6 months) is a good suggestion for the reasons given. My +1 is good with or without that change. Also: On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 2:55 PM Johan Corveleyn <[email protected]> wrote: Also, a small nit on the formulation: "simultaneously" in "when the > following conditions are met simultaneously" sounds like they have to > occur at precisely the same time. Maybe "when the following conditions > are both met" is better. Not sure though, I'm not a native speaker ... +1 for this tweak: although "simultaneously" probably would work well enough here, I agree that "when the following conditions are both met" is more clear. (I am a native speaker.) Cheers, Nathan
