You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Issac Goldstand <ma...@beamartyr.net> on 2011/09/16 07:51:33 UTC
EOL for 2.0
IIRC, we talked about making 2.0 EOL when we make the next release, but
I don't think we ever formalized the decision.
Does anyone have comments for or against announcing 2.0 End-Of-Life at a
set time (say 3 months) following the release of 2.4?
Issac
Re: EOL for 2.0
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 9/17/2011 8:59 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>
> On Sep 16, 2011, at 11:59 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
>> On 9/16/2011 12:51 AM, Issac Goldstand wrote:
>>> IIRC, we talked about making 2.0 EOL when we make the next release, but
>>> I don't think we ever formalized the decision.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have comments for or against announcing 2.0 End-Of-Life at a
>>> set time (say 3 months) following the release of 2.4?
>>
>> Yes, I'd prefer we set a 12 month sunset on 2.0 in conjunction with the
>> 2.4 release, not 3 months later when nobody is paying attention.
>
> +1. While I'd like to be rid of it earlier, I think 3 months is too fast. 12 months may be too long, but we lose nothing by setting it there rather than too short.
A 12 mos sunset is what we declared for 1.3 (or that is effectively what
happened)... we announced the final 1.3.42, and over the following 12 mos,
we examined various security complaints and found that none really applied.
In that time we turned off httpd-1.3 in bugzilla and warned everyone of its
end of life, no further releases.
And at the end of those 12 mos (13-14 actually) I pulled httpd-1.3.42 off of
downloads.xml, out of dist/httpd/, and removed various other references.
There is now simply a few remaining references to archive.a.o, which will
incidentally mention this is where old 1.3 can be found.
We can easily do the same with 2.0.64; no further bugfix releases expected,
and security fixes will end 12 months from the release of 2.4.0. That is
what sunset refers to, very limited support before being entirely abandoned.
We didn't even promise to go this far in 1.3 (we said security -patches- would
be announced during its sunset).
During those 12 mos, various sites made their own calls on statements about
their third party modules for 1.3, ranging from 'we quit updating effective
immediately' to 'we'll keep supporting and updating our module, irrespective
of the ASF's project'. Which is all fine, it is entirely their individual
choice as individual projects. But we framed the conversation so they could
each come up with their own messaging to their own end users.
Re: EOL for 2.0
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On Sep 16, 2011, at 11:59 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 9/16/2011 12:51 AM, Issac Goldstand wrote:
>> IIRC, we talked about making 2.0 EOL when we make the next release, but
>> I don't think we ever formalized the decision.
>>
>> Does anyone have comments for or against announcing 2.0 End-Of-Life at a
>> set time (say 3 months) following the release of 2.4?
>
> Yes, I'd prefer we set a 12 month sunset on 2.0 in conjunction with the
> 2.4 release, not 3 months later when nobody is paying attention.
+1. While I'd like to be rid of it earlier, I think 3 months is too fast. 12 months may be too long, but we lose nothing by setting it there rather than too short.
--
Rich Bowen
rbowen@rcbowen.com
rbowen@apache.org
Re: EOL for 2.0
Posted by Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>.
On 09/17/2011 12:25 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 16.09.2011 17:59, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> On 9/16/2011 12:51 AM, Issac Goldstand wrote:
>>> IIRC, we talked about making 2.0 EOL when we make the next release, but
>>> I don't think we ever formalized the decision.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have comments for or against announcing 2.0 End-Of-Life at a
>>> set time (say 3 months) following the release of 2.4?
>> Yes, I'd prefer we set a 12 month sunset on 2.0 in conjunction with the
>> 2.4 release, not 3 months later when nobody is paying attention.
>
> +1, 3 months is a bit quick, 12 months should be OK.
+1
Regards
Rüdiger
Re: EOL for 2.0
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
On 16.09.2011 17:59, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 9/16/2011 12:51 AM, Issac Goldstand wrote:
>> IIRC, we talked about making 2.0 EOL when we make the next release, but
>> I don't think we ever formalized the decision.
>>
>> Does anyone have comments for or against announcing 2.0 End-Of-Life at a
>> set time (say 3 months) following the release of 2.4?
>
> Yes, I'd prefer we set a 12 month sunset on 2.0 in conjunction with the
> 2.4 release, not 3 months later when nobody is paying attention.
+1, 3 months is a bit quick, 12 months should be OK.
Regards,
Rainer
Re: EOL for 2.0
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 9/16/2011 12:51 AM, Issac Goldstand wrote:
> IIRC, we talked about making 2.0 EOL when we make the next release, but
> I don't think we ever formalized the decision.
>
> Does anyone have comments for or against announcing 2.0 End-Of-Life at a
> set time (say 3 months) following the release of 2.4?
Yes, I'd prefer we set a 12 month sunset on 2.0 in conjunction with the
2.4 release, not 3 months later when nobody is paying attention.