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

[Regina Obe]

Sounds good to me.

Would you be okay if we put in an estimated EOL date for ones that haven't
released EOL?  
I assume so.  As a rule of thumb, I figure we can when we put up the first
micro, set that final to say 4 years in future or lower?

And then change it as needed once as we get closer to that date.

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 1:57 PM
> To: GEOS Development List <geos-devel at lists.osgeo.org>
> Subject: Re: [geos-devel] End of Life Policy (EOL)
> 
> Final release is pretty Boss. It kind of nicely makes the policy clear w/o
having
> to wade through a bunch of text and then do mental math to answer the
> question "is this EOL" and "when will this EOL".
> 
> 
> 
> > On Sep 12, 2022, at 10:55 AM, Regina Obe <lr at pcorp.us> wrote:
> >
> > Here is my first pass at a policy.
> >
> > https://libgeos.org/development/rfcs/rfc11/
> >
> > If people are agreeable with it, I can put a link to it on the
> > download page -- https://libgeos.org/usage/download/
> >
> > I was also thinking we should put the First Release date on this pages
to
> make it easier to do the math of how old a minor release is.
> > I think having a Final Release column might be going too far, though
other
> projects do that.
> >
> >
> >
> > From: geos-devel [mailto:geos-devel-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf
> > Of Kurt Schwehr
> > Sent: Monday, September 12, 2022 12:23 PM
> > To: GEOS Development List <geos-devel at lists.osgeo.org>
> > Subject: Re: [geos-devel] End of Life Policy (EOL)
> >
> > Regina,
> >
> > Thank you!  This will be a topic of discussion at the NumFocus funded
> projects later this month where I will be representing GDAL.  I will be
keeping
> an eye on the RFC and this thread for aspects that should be discussed at
the
> meeting.
> >
> > -kurt
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 9:19 AM Regina Obe <lr at pcorp.us> wrote:
> >> That works for me :)
> >>
> >> So I'll draft up an RFC to that effect.  So just to be clear, that
> >> leaves space open to:
> >>
> >> We may put an update on such a release like 3.4 to the 3.4 branch but
> >> we will not bother tagging it.
> >>
> >> I'm not going to say that of course, just saying we are okay with that.
> >>
> >> 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 11:37 AM
> >> > To: GEOS Development List <geos-devel at lists.osgeo.org>
> >> > Subject: Re: [geos-devel] End of Life Policy (EOL)
> >> >
> >> > 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
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> geos-devel mailing list
> geos-devel at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel