On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 at 03:17, C. Scott Andreas wrote:
> If there’s lack of clarity around EOL policy and dates, we should
> absolutely make this clear.
>
Fix is here:
https://github.com/thelastpickle/cassandra-website/tree/mck/update-5-0_dates_download_page
w/ html generated here:
https://raw
are commercial entities wanting to offer paid
> support they could focus on the LTS releases and bundle resources for the
> upstream support.
>
> This is a good discussion and I feel especially the implied CVE support
> needs to be more formalized.
>
> Thanks for indulging m
hanks for indulging me,
German
From: Jacek Lewandowski
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2023 11:23 PM
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: (CVE only) support for 3,11 beyond published EOL
To me, as this is an open source project, we, the community, do not have to do anything, we
dra.apache.org
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: (CVE only) support for 3,11 beyond published EOL
To me, as this is an open source project, we, the community, do not have to do
anything, we can, but we are not obliged to, and we usually do that because we
want to :-)
To me, EOL means that we move fo
To me, as this is an open source project, we, the community, do not have to
do anything, we can, but we are not obliged to, and we usually do that
because we want to :-)
To me, EOL means that we move focus to newer releases. Not that we are
forbidden to do anything in the older ones. One formal po
>
> Yes, this would be great. Right now users are confused what EOL means and
> what they can expect.
>
>
I think the project would need to land on an agreed position. I tried to
find any reference to my earlier statement around CVEs on the latest
unmaintained branch but could not find it (I'm su
Josh,
We already have an understanding and precedence in place that CVEs on
the previous unmaintained branch are addressed and released.
Correct me if I'm wrong German, but the question I got from your email was
effectively "If we consider formalizing our comm
> We already have an understanding and precedence in place that CVEs on
> the previous unmaintained branch are addressed and released.
Correct me if I'm wrong German, but the question I got from your email was
effectively "If we consider formalizing our commitment to fixing CVE's on
older branch
>
> There have been several discussions on slack [1], [2] to support 3.11 beyond
> the date stated on the web [3] which is May-July 23 and given it's April
> that's an unlikely date.
>
Strictly speaking it is maintained until the 5.0 GA release. We should
update the downloads page accordingly.
All,
There have been several discussions on slack [1], [2] to support 3.11 beyond
the date stated on the web [3] which is May-July 23 and given it's April that's
an unlikely date.
Given that there are still a sizable number of users on 3.11 in [2] we talked
about a CVE only support for some ti
10 matches
Mail list logo
