Re: Subversion 1.10.0 end-of-life

[Daniel Sahlberg <da...@gmail.com>]

This is a thread reply and not directly to Johan's e-mail, just grabbed the
last one in the thread.

I'm trying to sum up the thread with the hope that we can reach a decision
within the next few days.

In the thread there has been various +1's from Johan Corveleyn, Nathan
Hartman, Daniel Shahaf and me. Stefan Sperling raised valuable points which
I hope we have addressed (mainly not to have too many LTS releases at the
same time: If we end up in a situation with frequent releases we should
make new releases Regular instead of LTS). I have not seen anyone object to
move away from time-based releases and I believe we are approaching
consensus on this.

Daniel Shahaf and I have co-authored some updates in
staging: r1900404,r1900405,r1900528,r1900532,r1900561,r1900562. I have test
merged these changes to publish and attach a patch showing the actual diff.

Regarding declaring 1.10 EOL, it was announced to have a 4 year support
period /after/ it was released. I have seen no objections on applying this
and assume we are approaching consensus on this as well. There will be a
few additional changes (as noted by Danielsh elsewhere) to the website and
to dist/release caused by the EOL.

I will allow the thread a few days to soak to give everyone a last chance
to raise concerns before making the actual commits.

Kind regards,
Daniel Sahlberg

Re: Subversion 1.10.0 end-of-life

[Daniel Sahlberg <da...@gmail.com>]

Den lör 7 maj 2022 kl 12:35 skrev Julian Foad <ju...@apache.org>:

> Just to add my support: I am glad to see the community adapting the
> release policy to suit the current circumstances.
>

Thanks Julian, it means a lot to have your support!

/Daniel

Re: Subversion 1.10.0 end-of-life

[Julian Foad <ju...@apache.org>]

Just to add my support: I am glad to see the community adapting the
release policy to suit the current circumstances.

Re: Subversion 1.10.0 end-of-life

[Daniel Sahlberg <da...@gmail.com>]

Den fre 27 maj 2022 kl 16:34 skrev Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>:

> Daniel Sahlberg wrote on Fri, 27 May 2022 10:40 +00:00:
> > Den tors 26 maj 2022 kl 14:14 skrev Daniel Shahaf <
> d.s@daniel.shahaf.name>:
> >> +0.5 to post to announce@ (and users@).  Might want to post the full
> >> draft here (including subject, etc.) first, though?
> >
> > I propose to reuse the news article, adding the tail from the release
> > announcements.
> >
> > [[[
> > Subject: Apache Subversion 1.10.x end of life
> >
> > The Subversion 1.10.x line is end of life (EOL). It was released
> 2018-04-13
> > and was supported for the last four years according to the LTS release
> > life-cycle (see How we plan releases[1]). We recommend everyone to update
> > to the current LTS release 1.14.2 as soon as practically possible since
> > we've stopped accepting bug reports against 1.10.x and will not make any
> > more 1.10.x releases. The last release (1.10.8) was made 2022-04-12 and
> is
> > available to anyone who can't update to 1.14.
> >
>
> Looks good.
>
> Nits:
>
> - s/last release/last 1.10.x release/
> - s/ (2018|2022)/ on \1/ [two lines affected]
>

Thanks, r1901374.


> Should we say something about 1.15?  (I can argue either way.)
>

I would say something about 1.15 if we had a very strict timeline for the
release. As of now, I don't think we have (sorry to say!).

 /Daniel

Re: Subversion 1.10.0 end-of-life

[Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>]

Daniel Sahlberg wrote on Fri, 27 May 2022 10:40 +00:00:
> Den tors 26 maj 2022 kl 14:14 skrev Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>:
>> +0.5 to post to announce@ (and users@).  Might want to post the full
>> draft here (including subject, etc.) first, though?
>
> I propose to reuse the news article, adding the tail from the release
> announcements.
>
> [[[
> Subject: Apache Subversion 1.10.x end of life
>
> The Subversion 1.10.x line is end of life (EOL). It was released 2018-04-13
> and was supported for the last four years according to the LTS release
> life-cycle (see How we plan releases[1]). We recommend everyone to update
> to the current LTS release 1.14.2 as soon as practically possible since
> we've stopped accepting bug reports against 1.10.x and will not make any
> more 1.10.x releases. The last release (1.10.8) was made 2022-04-12 and is
> available to anyone who can't update to 1.14.
>

Looks good.

Nits:

- s/last release/last 1.10.x release/
- s/ (2018|2022)/ on \1/ [two lines affected]

Should we say something about 1.15?  (I can argue either way.)

Cheers,

Daniel

> Thanks,
> - The Subversion Team
>
> [1] https://subversion.apache.org/roadmap.html#release-planning
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, please see:
>
>     https://subversion.apache.org/mailing-lists.html#unsubscribing
> ]]]
>
>
> /Daniel

Re: Subversion 1.10.0 end-of-life

[Daniel Sahlberg <da...@gmail.com>]

Den tors 26 maj 2022 kl 14:14 skrev Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>:
> +0.5 to post to announce@ (and users@).  Might want to post the full
> draft here (including subject, etc.) first, though?

I propose to reuse the news article, adding the tail from the release
announcements.

[[[
Subject: Apache Subversion 1.10.x end of life

The Subversion 1.10.x line is end of life (EOL). It was released 2018-04-13
and was supported for the last four years according to the LTS release
life-cycle (see How we plan releases[1]). We recommend everyone to update
to the current LTS release 1.14.2 as soon as practically possible since
we've stopped accepting bug reports against 1.10.x and will not make any
more 1.10.x releases. The last release (1.10.8) was made 2022-04-12 and is
available to anyone who can't update to 1.14.

Thanks,
- The Subversion Team

[1] https://subversion.apache.org/roadmap.html#release-planning

--
To unsubscribe, please see:

    https://subversion.apache.org/mailing-lists.html#unsubscribing
]]]


/Daniel

Re: Subversion 1.10.0 end-of-life

[Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>]

Daniel Sahlberg wrote on Sun, 22 May 2022 21:07 +00:00:
> Den mån 9 maj 2022 kl 14:12 skrev Nathan Hartman <ha...@gmail.com>:
>
>> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 7:38 AM Daniel Sahlberg <
>> daniel.l.sahlberg@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Den sön 8 maj 2022 kl 02:21 skrev Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>:
>>>
>>>> Daniel Sahlberg wrote on Sat, 07 May 2022 18:37 +00:00:
>>>> > Den lör 7 maj 2022 kl 14:17 skrev Daniel Shahaf <
>>>> d.s@daniel.shahaf.name>:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Daniel Sahlberg wrote on Sat, 07 May 2022 09:53 +00:00:
>>>> >> > I've committed the changes in r1900649.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I wonder if this merits a news entry on /index.html?  Just "1.10.x is
>>>> >> EOL; please upgrade to 1.14".
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > Good point. I also considered this, but I couldn't find any other
>>>> > release being announced EOL so I elected to not do this. I'm open
>>>> > to reconsider!
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Until today, most releases that have gone EOL did so either by virtue of
>>>> a subsequent .0 release being made (1.0 through 1.8) or at about the
>>>> same time as a subsequent .0 release being made (1.11 through 1.13
>>>> inclusive).  In either case, at about the time of a release's going EOL
>>>> there would have been a news entry (and announce@ post, and possibly
>>>> a press release) about the new release, and the new release's release
>>>> notes would have pointed out, at the very end, that previous releases
>>>> were EOL'ed by the new release. So, to someone who knew our "support two
>>>> release lines" policy, EOLings were very visible.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Good point. I saw this in the release notes but I can't find anything in
>>> announce@. Is the new release policy something we want to announce?
>>>
>>> I've added a news item in 1900735 et al.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I think we should announce it.
>>
>> The proposed news item looks good.
>>
>> One thing I might change is to suggest updating "as soon as practical," or
>> something to that effect, and point out that 1.10.8, released last month,
>> is available as a final 1.10 release.
>>
>
> Thanks, sounds like a good idea. I've added this in r1901130.
>
> Can I just copy the news item text and post to announce@

+0.5 to post to announce@ (and users@).  Might want to post the full
draft here (including subject, etc.) first, though?

> (I suppose I will have to configure my @apache.org address as sender).

Yes.  It's mail-relay.apache.org:587.

Cheers,

Daniel

Re: Subversion 1.10.0 end-of-life

[Daniel Sahlberg <da...@gmail.com>]

Den mån 9 maj 2022 kl 14:12 skrev Nathan Hartman <ha...@gmail.com>:

> On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 7:38 AM Daniel Sahlberg <
> daniel.l.sahlberg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Den sön 8 maj 2022 kl 02:21 skrev Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>:
>>
>>> Daniel Sahlberg wrote on Sat, 07 May 2022 18:37 +00:00:
>>> > Den lör 7 maj 2022 kl 14:17 skrev Daniel Shahaf <
>>> d.s@daniel.shahaf.name>:
>>> >
>>> >> Daniel Sahlberg wrote on Sat, 07 May 2022 09:53 +00:00:
>>> >> > I've committed the changes in r1900649.
>>> >>
>>> >> I wonder if this merits a news entry on /index.html?  Just "1.10.x is
>>> >> EOL; please upgrade to 1.14".
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > Good point. I also considered this, but I couldn't find any other
>>> release
>>> > being announced EOL so I elected to not do this. I'm open to
>>> reconsider!
>>> >
>>>
>>> Until today, most releases that have gone EOL did so either by virtue of
>>> a subsequent .0 release being made (1.0 through 1.8) or at about the
>>> same time as a subsequent .0 release being made (1.11 through 1.13
>>> inclusive).  In either case, at about the time of a release's going EOL
>>> there would have been a news entry (and announce@ post, and possibly
>>> a press release) about the new release, and the new release's release
>>> notes would have pointed out, at the very end, that previous releases
>>> were EOL'ed by the new release. So, to someone who knew our "support two
>>> release lines" policy, EOLings were very visible.
>>>
>>
>> Good point. I saw this in the release notes but I can't find anything in
>> announce@. Is the new release policy something we want to announce?
>>
>> I've added a news item in 1900735 et al.
>>
>
>
> I think we should announce it.
>
> The proposed news item looks good.
>
> One thing I might change is to suggest updating "as soon as practical," or
> something to that effect, and point out that 1.10.8, released last month,
> is available as a final 1.10 release.
>

Thanks, sounds like a good idea. I've added this in r1901130.

Can I just copy the news item text and post to announce@ (I suppose I will
have to configure my @apache.org address as sender).

/Daniel

Re: Subversion 1.10.0 end-of-life

[Nathan Hartman <ha...@gmail.com>]

On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 7:38 AM Daniel Sahlberg <da...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Den sön 8 maj 2022 kl 02:21 skrev Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>:
>
>> Daniel Sahlberg wrote on Sat, 07 May 2022 18:37 +00:00:
>> > Den lör 7 maj 2022 kl 14:17 skrev Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name
>> >:
>> >
>> >> Daniel Sahlberg wrote on Sat, 07 May 2022 09:53 +00:00:
>> >> > I've committed the changes in r1900649.
>> >>
>> >> I wonder if this merits a news entry on /index.html?  Just "1.10.x is
>> >> EOL; please upgrade to 1.14".
>> >>
>> >
>> > Good point. I also considered this, but I couldn't find any other
>> release
>> > being announced EOL so I elected to not do this. I'm open to reconsider!
>> >
>>
>> Until today, most releases that have gone EOL did so either by virtue of
>> a subsequent .0 release being made (1.0 through 1.8) or at about the
>> same time as a subsequent .0 release being made (1.11 through 1.13
>> inclusive).  In either case, at about the time of a release's going EOL
>> there would have been a news entry (and announce@ post, and possibly
>> a press release) about the new release, and the new release's release
>> notes would have pointed out, at the very end, that previous releases
>> were EOL'ed by the new release. So, to someone who knew our "support two
>> release lines" policy, EOLings were very visible.
>>
>
> Good point. I saw this in the release notes but I can't find anything in
> announce@. Is the new release policy something we want to announce?
>
> I've added a news item in 1900735 et al.
>


I think we should announce it.

The proposed news item looks good.

One thing I might change is to suggest updating "as soon as practical," or
something to that effect, and point out that 1.10.8, released last month,
is available as a final 1.10 release.

Cheers
Nathan

Re: Subversion 1.10.0 end-of-life

[Daniel Sahlberg <da...@gmail.com>]

Den sön 8 maj 2022 kl 02:21 skrev Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>:

> Daniel Sahlberg wrote on Sat, 07 May 2022 18:37 +00:00:
> > Den lör 7 maj 2022 kl 14:17 skrev Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name
> >:
> >
> >> Daniel Sahlberg wrote on Sat, 07 May 2022 09:53 +00:00:
> >> > I've committed the changes in r1900649.
> >>
> >> I wonder if this merits a news entry on /index.html?  Just "1.10.x is
> >> EOL; please upgrade to 1.14".
> >>
> >
> > Good point. I also considered this, but I couldn't find any other release
> > being announced EOL so I elected to not do this. I'm open to reconsider!
> >
>
> Until today, most releases that have gone EOL did so either by virtue of
> a subsequent .0 release being made (1.0 through 1.8) or at about the
> same time as a subsequent .0 release being made (1.11 through 1.13
> inclusive).  In either case, at about the time of a release's going EOL
> there would have been a news entry (and announce@ post, and possibly
> a press release) about the new release, and the new release's release
> notes would have pointed out, at the very end, that previous releases
> were EOL'ed by the new release. So, to someone who knew our "support two
> release lines" policy, EOLings were very visible.
>

Good point. I saw this in the release notes but I can't find anything in
announce@. Is the new release policy something we want to announce?

I've added a news item in 1900735 et al.

Kind regards,
Daniel

Re: Subversion 1.10.0 end-of-life

[Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>]

Daniel Sahlberg wrote on Sat, 07 May 2022 18:37 +00:00:
> Den lör 7 maj 2022 kl 14:17 skrev Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>:
>
>> Daniel Sahlberg wrote on Sat, 07 May 2022 09:53 +00:00:
>> > I've committed the changes in r1900649.
>>
>> I wonder if this merits a news entry on /index.html?  Just "1.10.x is
>> EOL; please upgrade to 1.14".
>>
>
> Good point. I also considered this, but I couldn't find any other release
> being announced EOL so I elected to not do this. I'm open to reconsider!
>

Until today, most releases that have gone EOL did so either by virtue of
a subsequent .0 release being made (1.0 through 1.8) or at about the
same time as a subsequent .0 release being made (1.11 through 1.13
inclusive).  In either case, at about the time of a release's going EOL
there would have been a news entry (and announce@ post, and possibly
a press release) about the new release, and the new release's release
notes would have pointed out, at the very end, that previous releases
were EOL'ed by the new release. So, to someone who knew our "support two
release lines" policy, EOLings were very visible.

As to 1.9, I don't think we made a conscious decision _not_ to make
a news entry pointing out that 1.9 went EOL, either.

> There will be a bunch of further changes, for example the download page.
> I'll commit to staging first and encourage review (it is getting late
> here...) and will merge to publish later.

Thanks for doing the legwork :)

Daniel

Re: Subversion 1.10.0 end-of-life

[Daniel Sahlberg <da...@gmail.com>]

Den lör 7 maj 2022 kl 14:17 skrev Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>:

> Daniel Sahlberg wrote on Sat, 07 May 2022 09:53 +00:00:
> > I've committed the changes in r1900649.
>
> I wonder if this merits a news entry on /index.html?  Just "1.10.x is
> EOL; please upgrade to 1.14".
>

Good point. I also considered this, but I couldn't find any other release
being announced EOL so I elected to not do this. I'm open to reconsider!

There will be a bunch of further changes, for example the download page.
I'll commit to staging first and encourage review (it is getting late
here...) and will merge to publish later.

/Daniel

Re: Subversion 1.10.0 end-of-life

[Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>]

Daniel Sahlberg wrote on Sat, 07 May 2022 09:53 +00:00:
> I've committed the changes in r1900649.

I wonder if this merits a news entry on /index.html?  Just "1.10.x is
EOL; please upgrade to 1.14".

Re: Subversion 1.10.0 end-of-life

[Daniel Sahlberg <da...@gmail.com>]

Den tors 5 maj 2022 kl 05:32 skrev Nathan Hartman <hartman.nathan@gmail.com
>:

> On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 5:06 PM Daniel Sahlberg <
> daniel.l.sahlberg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is a thread reply and not directly to Johan's e-mail, just grabbed
>> the last one in the thread.
>>
>> I'm trying to sum up the thread with the hope that we can reach a
>> decision within the next few days.
>>
>> In the thread there has been various +1's from Johan Corveleyn, Nathan
>> Hartman, Daniel Shahaf and me. Stefan Sperling raised valuable points which
>> I hope we have addressed (mainly not to have too many LTS releases at the
>> same time: If we end up in a situation with frequent releases we should
>> make new releases Regular instead of LTS). I have not seen anyone object to
>> move away from time-based releases and I believe we are approaching
>> consensus on this.
>>
>> Daniel Shahaf and I have co-authored some updates in
>> staging: r1900404,r1900405,r1900528,r1900532,r1900561,r1900562. I have test
>> merged these changes to publish and attach a patch showing the actual diff.
>>
>
>
> I've had a busy last few days and didn't respond here but I reviewed the
> above commits soon after they were done as well as the page itself at
> staging as it is now, and it looks good to me.
>
> There were a few minor things I was going to mention but they were fixed
> before I got around to bringing them up.
>
> Thanks Daniel and Daniel for your work on this and thanks to everyone for
> providing input.
>
> I think this release policy is a reasonable middle ground between the
> original and the recent one, which is realistic and still keeps the most
> important benefits of both. Hopefully everyone is happy with it. If you
> have any input either way, please speak up!!
>
>
> Regarding declaring 1.10 EOL, it was announced to have a 4 year support
>> period /after/ it was released. I have seen no objections on applying this
>> and assume we are approaching consensus on this as well. There will be a
>> few additional changes (as noted by Danielsh elsewhere) to the website and
>> to dist/release caused by the EOL.
>>
>> I will allow the thread a few days to soak to give everyone a last chance
>> to raise concerns before making the actual commits.
>>
>
>
> Yes, let's wait and see for a few more days.
>

I've committed the changes in r1900649.

Kind regards,
Daniel

>

Re: Subversion 1.10.0 end-of-life

[Nathan Hartman <ha...@gmail.com>]

On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 5:06 PM Daniel Sahlberg <da...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> This is a thread reply and not directly to Johan's e-mail, just grabbed
> the last one in the thread.
>
> I'm trying to sum up the thread with the hope that we can reach a decision
> within the next few days.
>
> In the thread there has been various +1's from Johan Corveleyn, Nathan
> Hartman, Daniel Shahaf and me. Stefan Sperling raised valuable points which
> I hope we have addressed (mainly not to have too many LTS releases at the
> same time: If we end up in a situation with frequent releases we should
> make new releases Regular instead of LTS). I have not seen anyone object to
> move away from time-based releases and I believe we are approaching
> consensus on this.
>
> Daniel Shahaf and I have co-authored some updates in
> staging: r1900404,r1900405,r1900528,r1900532,r1900561,r1900562. I have test
> merged these changes to publish and attach a patch showing the actual diff.
>


I've had a busy last few days and didn't respond here but I reviewed the
above commits soon after they were done as well as the page itself at
staging as it is now, and it looks good to me.

There were a few minor things I was going to mention but they were fixed
before I got around to bringing them up.

Thanks Daniel and Daniel for your work on this and thanks to everyone for
providing input.

I think this release policy is a reasonable middle ground between the
original and the recent one, which is realistic and still keeps the most
important benefits of both. Hopefully everyone is happy with it. If you
have any input either way, please speak up!!


Regarding declaring 1.10 EOL, it was announced to have a 4 year support
> period /after/ it was released. I have seen no objections on applying this
> and assume we are approaching consensus on this as well. There will be a
> few additional changes (as noted by Danielsh elsewhere) to the website and
> to dist/release caused by the EOL.
>
> I will allow the thread a few days to soak to give everyone a last chance
> to raise concerns before making the actual commits.
>


Yes, let's wait and see for a few more days.

Cheers,
Nathan