On 16. 2. 26 21:14, Nathan Hartman wrote:
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.)
It's also better writing style. None of us is a Hemingway, but we can at
least try. :)
-- Brane
