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looks superseded.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