RFC notifications bot (Feb 10 2025 at 19:58): RFC notifications bot (Feb 10 2025 at 19:58):alexcrichton opened PR #42 from alexcrichton:wasmtime-lts to bytecodealliance:main:
This is borne out of discussion on bytecodealliance/wasmtime#10074 and bytecodealliance/wasmtime#10161 and proposes adding an LTS channel for Wasmtime. The general tl;dr; is:
- Wasmtime LTS releases will be every 10th release, or 10 months apart.
- LTS releases are supported for 20 months.
- LTS releases are guaranteed to receive security fixes, and may optionally receive bug fixes. Feature backports are not supported, even if they're provided.
RFC notifications bot (Feb 10 2025 at 20:00):alexcrichton edited PR #42:
This is borne out of discussion on bytecodealliance/wasmtime#10074 and bytecodealliance/wasmtime#10161 and proposes adding an LTS channel for Wasmtime. The general tl;dr; is:
- Wasmtime LTS releases will be every 10th release, or 10 months apart.
- LTS releases are supported for 20 months.
- LTS releases are guaranteed to receive security fixes, and may optionally receive bug fixes. Feature backports are not supported, even if they're provided.
RFC notifications bot (Feb 10 2025 at 20:04):alexcrichton updated PR #42.
RFC notifications bot (Feb 10 2025 at 20:06):alexcrichton updated PR #42.
RFC notifications bot (Feb 10 2025 at 20:10):alexcrichton commented on PR #42:
Some more bits from https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/issues/10161 I want to fill in:
- Add some wording about how we still want to avoid the "rush in the features before LTS" problem of feature-based releases
- Add some wording about how we still intend to balance such feature pressure with regular releases
- Add words about how users can always fork an LTS branch as a "stable base" and add their own features while still getting security backports from upstream
- Probably add a bit more wording about how this is intended to signal stability/maturity and how we're trying to proactively do this rather than waiting for a cacophony of users requesting an LTS release
RFC notifications bot (Feb 26 2025 at 21:03):fitzgen submitted PR review:
Thanks for writing this up! I am in favor.
RFC notifications bot (Feb 26 2025 at 21:03):fitzgen created PR review comment:
How about a weekly
cronCI job for allrelease-*branches that checks if this is an LTS release and then does a full CI run if so? I'll throw out sunday mornings as a good time to schedule this.Ideally this would also file an issue on failure as well...
RFC notifications bot (Feb 26 2025 at 21:03):fitzgen created PR review comment:
I would be in favor of starting with 15 months of support (2-month overlap seems perhaps too short; half of time till the next LTS seems nice and round) and then re-evaluating whether to extend that to 20 after the first LTS goes out of support, as you suggest. (FWIW: At that time, if we extend to 20, I don't think we should need to go through the whole RFC process again.)
RFC notifications bot (Feb 26 2025 at 23:08):alexcrichton updated PR #42.
RFC notifications bot (Feb 26 2025 at 23:09):alexcrichton submitted PR review.
RFC notifications bot (Feb 26 2025 at 23:09):alexcrichton created PR review comment:
Makes sense yeah, I thought through some of the particulars here and I wrote up some more detailed discussion of what I think the CI will look like and why I think it's reasonable.
RFC notifications bot (Feb 26 2025 at 23:09):alexcrichton submitted PR review.
RFC notifications bot (Feb 26 2025 at 23:09):alexcrichton created PR review comment:
Sounds good to me, updated :+1:
Last updated: Feb 28 2025 at 03:10 UTC