On Mon, Jul 6, 2026 at 12:48 PM Evgeny Kotkov via dev < [email protected]> wrote:
> Evgeny Kotkov <[email protected]> writes: > > > That leaves (2) as the only remaining item. > > > > From the RM perspective, I'd lean toward reverting the XML schema > validation > > from the 1.15.x branch so we can roll RC3, and finalizing the validation > > work on trunk on its own schedule. > > The responses on this topic have been somewhat divided so far. > > I think there are factors that support staying on the course where we > backport > the new version of the change (r1935776): > > - The original change with venv is already a part of 1.15.x. That puts it > on > a different track than, for example, adding a new feature. > > - The change has a reduced blast radius: it doesn't touch the core code and > is focused mostly on the tests. (This part is a bit arguable, since it > also changes the build system, but I still think the argument applies.) > > - Even if we aim for a revert, it would still have to go through STATUS, > possibly with a backport branch of its own. So there's also some > community > effort required. I'd like to add one more factor to support the new version of the change: avoiding complexity and confusion. Since we're already planning to keep the new version for the future (1.16), 1.15 hasn't been released yet, and 1.14 didn't have it at all, I think it is better to release 1.15 with the new version. Otherwise we'll be stuck supporting both the old and the new versions for a long time. Weighing the risk/benefit of backporting it to 1.15 now versus having to support both versions for an indefinite amount of time, I think the risk is small and the reduced maintenance burden is worth it. With that in mind, I'm inclined to proceed with the following plan: wait > until > the r1935776 change is merged to 1.15.x, and roll RC3 shortly after that. > I also plan to cast my own vote on the nomination, if time permits. > > If this plan doesn't work out (for example, if we run into issues with the > currently proposed nomination), I'll make an alternative nomination that > cuts the change from 1.15.x, retargeting it to 1.16. > > Thoughts? > > > Thanks, > Evgeny Kotkov > This plan sounds reasonable to me. Thanks, Nathan
