On 2026/02/16 16:27:00 Evgeny Kotkov via dev 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.
As the FreeBSD port maintainer I'd like to rephrase it from my PoV: We have
currently two ports:
devel/subversion
devel/subversion-lts
while devel/subversion being the default.
>From my understanding from 1.15 this will not be required anymore and there
>will be more or less one permanent LTS release and I should fold both into
>devel/subversion?
Michael
