[geos-devel] End of Life Policy (EOL)

[Paul Ramsey]

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 <lr at 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-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of
>> Paul Ramsey
>> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2022 11:20 AM
>> To: GEOS Development List <geos-devel at lists.osgeo.org>
>> Subject: Re: [geos-devel] End of Life Policy (EOL)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 12, 2022, at 8:12 AM, Regina Obe <lr at 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 at lists.osgeo.org
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> geos-devel mailing list
>> geos-devel at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel
> 
> _______________________________________________
> geos-devel mailing list
> geos-devel at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel