Wonderful! So, now that we have a release manager for MediaWiki, is the release manager the person who writes/approves the policy for what sort of things are worth a 1.x.y release and how they're tracked on bugzilla, and will Chris be able to make and push tarballs for those even if they're not (only) security-related? Last news I have is that Chris was going to discuss said policy with RobLa (and maybe also Greg), but this looks superseded. I have a list of about a dozen (?) critical bugs in 1.20.2 that make me not so proud (and perhaps ashamed) of suggesting people to upgrade to it, at least for some use cases. Another thing that would be nice to have on https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Version_lifecycle or elsewhere is what are reasonable expectations about the stable releases. For instance, we know that 1.x.0 releases are always a nightmare: they're practically untested; branch point is pseudo-random and we have no info whatsoever about the bugs that MediaWiki (and extensions) had at any given revision. It would be nice to write somewhere that, say, 5 months after the 1.x.0 release came out, it's reasonable to think that most of its critical bugs/regressions are fixed in the last 1.x.y release; while of course 1.(x-1).* and 1.(x+1).* will have different bugs.
Nemo