Add exceptional versions #2
Conversation
| "exceptional-versions": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "version": "8", | ||
| "note": "CentOS Stream 8 was explicitly never supported." | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@omajid From dotnet#9382 I am not fully sure why CentOS Stream 8 was not officially supported. Maybe you want to help here with giving a better reason besides what I was able to come up with.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We have a policy to not support an OS if it will go EOL within 6 months (or so) after a given .NET version ships. That rule is at play here.
https://blog.centos.org/2023/04/end-dates-are-coming-for-centos-stream-8-and-centos-linux-7/
| "exceptional-versions": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "version": "7", | ||
| "note": "Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 was explicitly never supported." | ||
| } | ||
| ], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@richlander Maybe we want to give a better explanation here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It was explicitly not supported due to glibc compatibility. When we moved from CentOS 7 to Ubuntu 16.04 as the compilation target, we dropped RHEL 7, CentOS 7, and any other distro in that version family.
Context: dotnet/runtime#83428
| ], | ||
| "exceptional-versions": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "version": "11", | ||
| "note": "Debian 11 is continued to be supported after EOL as it's used as [container base](https://github.com/dotnet/dotnet-docker/discussions/5710)." | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@richlander This is based on my assumption/understanding that the container image was based off from Debian 11 similar to .NET 6, so this would also have been true at EOL state.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This one looks good for 6.0 but not 7.0. 7.0 was already EOL when Debian 11 went EOL.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, so the container images for .NET 7 were based on Debian 12 then? Thought I saw 11 somewhere. I know that .NET 6 uses Debian 11 and .NET 8 uses Debian 12.
11 is still listed as supported. So this exceptional entry is less about it changing at some point but about giving users context that there was something special about Debian 11/12 to begin with.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
They were based on Debian 11, but since Debian 11 went EOL after .NET 7, this exception isn't important.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see the field more as "noteworthy version" with added information about what makes this special, not just about "this has an effect on the lifecycle". Therefore, I would expect this to been there right from the get-go of the .NET version, not just when Debian 11 went EOL. Same reason why I added it to .NET 8 while Debian 12 is still in support.
Toolwise, it makes no difference for me, as I would not see a difference when checking for the EOL point in time, especially since I'm not checking EOL .NET versions anymore.
I agree with you that it's not important. So if you dislike it, I can also remove it. I only thought it might give people more background information on .NET that they might not otherwise find related to supported OS.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is the same case as dotnet#9481 (comment).
When .NET 7 went EOL, Debian 11 was still supported by Debian maintainers. That's the final state of .NET 7 support, so no extra information is needed.
The tool should not check if "supported" OSes are actually still supported for EOL .NET versions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This comment is IMO not about a state that applied AFTER EOL but applied to that version even starting with 8.0.0. See
core/release-notes/8.0/supported-os.json
Lines 162 to 167 in e3714e8
But I have no strong feelings on that, we can also just keep it as is.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sorry ... I've been travelling so short on time.
The 8.0 example/change makes good sense. Fully on board.
It's the .NET 7 one that is different since Debian 11 was not supported after it's EOL since .NET 7 EOL came first. The big question is whether we would have needed to at this exception at .NET 7 EOL. I believe we would not have. Similarly, will we need to add the same exception, for Debian 12, at .NET 9 EOL. Also, likely not.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would be good to get more opinions on this. But since there aren't really users besides us, I think there won't be too much input soon. So I'm fine either way for the moment as long as we have the exceptions stated latest when something is EOL. Me personally, I don't know about all the things all the time, so having them upfront would help me. But since I'm not running into issues, it's fine for me either way. I just wouldn't be able to add them :)
Contributes to dotnet#9431
This is a draft for an idea brought up by @richlander when discussing about dotnet#9481 (comment)