As long as the word "support" does not appear in the text. Perhaps "will not have any further numbered releases" is more correct than "not supported".
P > On Sep 12, 2022, at 8:34 AM, Regina Obe <l...@pcorp.us> wrote: > > I'm thinking simple fixes and serious security bugs. > > I think it's a given we won't break our backs to fix a particular bug if it > is deemed "De-stabilizing". > By De-stabilizing, I'm thinking enough code to risk causing a particular > bigger issue. Pretty much the same policy we have in PostGIS no? > > But by saying EOL we are saying we will absolutely NEVER push fixes to it. > > If some corporate paying customer is running something as crazy as 3.4, you > should just fork that for them and patch it there and deal with their > upgrade issues some other day. > > Thanks, > Regina > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: geos-devel [mailto:geos-devel-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of >> Paul Ramsey >> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2022 11:20 AM >> To: GEOS Development List <geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org> >> Subject: Re: [geos-devel] End of Life Policy (EOL) >> >> >> >>> On Sep 12, 2022, at 8:12 AM, Regina Obe <l...@pcorp.us> wrote: >>> >>> I'd like to make an RFC proposing a standardish End of Like Policy >>> >>> Does anyone have an issue with that? >> >> Only insofar as there's this idea that we support any particular version > at all. >> Honestly, there are some bugs I just cannot be bothered to try and fix >> (anything overlay pre 3.9, right? the fix there is to upgrade) but at the > same >> time, I don't really mind pulling back trivial stuff pretty far. What does > it mean >> to "support" this stuff anyways? Comes right down to it, if a paying > customer >> on 3.4 has an issue and is unable to upgrade, we'll break our fingers to > try and >> fix it. But that has to do with our corporate support, not some community >> commitment to support. >> >> ??? >> >> P >> >> >>> >>> I'm thinking of a policy along the lines of >>> >>> We support a release generally at most X plus years after the first >>> version of it, but we have discretion to increase that if needed. >>> >>> X = 3 - 5 feels about right. >>> >>> How do people feel about that? >>> >>> If so I can draft up an RFC about that and we can edit if we are >>> comfortable with that and start EOL'ing other releases besides the 3.5 I >> recently EOL'd. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Regina >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> geos-devel mailing list >>> geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org >>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel >> >> _______________________________________________ >> geos-devel mailing list >> geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org >> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel > > _______________________________________________ > geos-devel mailing list > geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel _______________________________________________ geos-devel mailing list geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel