Add exceptional versions #2
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -131,11 +131,16 @@ | |
| "Arm64", | ||
| "ppc64le", | ||
| "s390x", | ||
| "x64" | ||
| ], | ||
| "supported-versions": [ | ||
| "9" | ||
| ], | ||
| "exceptional-versions": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "version": "8", | ||
| "note": "CentOS Stream 8 was explicitly never supported." | ||
| } | ||
|
Comment on lines
+139
to
+143
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/ |
||
| ] | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
|
|
@@ -154,6 +159,11 @@ | |
| "unsupported-versions": [ | ||
| "11" | ||
| ], | ||
| "exceptional-versions": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "version": "12", | ||
| "note": "Debian 12 is continued to be supported after EOL as it's used as [container base](https://github.com/dotnet/dotnet-docker/discussions/5710)." | ||
| } | ||
| ] | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
|
|
@@ -207,6 +217,12 @@ | |
| "9", | ||
| "8" | ||
| ], | ||
| "exceptional-versions": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "version": "7", | ||
| "note": "Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 was explicitly never supported." | ||
| } | ||
| ], | ||
|
Comment on lines
+220
to
+225
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 |
||
| "notes": [ | ||
| "RHEL-compatible derivatives are supported per [.NET Support](../../support.md)." | ||
| ] | ||
|
|
@@ -292,6 +308,12 @@ | |
| "unsupported-versions": [ | ||
| "10-21h2-e" | ||
| ], | ||
| "exceptional-versions": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "version": "10-1507-e-lts", | ||
| "note": "Windows 10 1507 was explicitly never supported." | ||
| } | ||
| ], | ||
| "notes": [ | ||
| "The x64 emulator is supported on Windows 11 Arm64." | ||
| ] | ||
|
|
@@ -313,6 +335,16 @@ | |
| "2012-R2", | ||
| "2012" | ||
| ], | ||
| "exceptional-versions": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "version": "2012", | ||
| "note": "Windows Server 2012 is supported with ESU." | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "version": "2012-R2", | ||
| "note": "Windows Server 2012 R2 is supported with ESU." | ||
| } | ||
| ], | ||
| "notes": [ | ||
| "Windows Server 2012 and 2012 R2 are supported with [Extended Security Updates](https://learn.microsoft.com/windows-server/get-started/extended-security-updates-overview)." | ||
| ] | ||
|
|
@@ -332,6 +364,19 @@ | |
| "2016", | ||
| "2012-R2", | ||
| "2012" | ||
| ], | ||
| "exceptional-versions": [ | ||
| { | ||
| "version": "2012", | ||
| "note": "Windows Server 2012 is supported with ESU." | ||
| }, | ||
| { | ||
| "version": "2012-R2", | ||
| "note": "Windows Server 2012 R2 is supported with ESU." | ||
| } | ||
| ], | ||
| "notes": [ | ||
| "Windows Server 2012 and 2012 R2 are supported with [Extended Security Updates](https://learn.microsoft.com/windows-server/get-started/extended-security-updates-overview)." | ||
| ] | ||
| } | ||
| ] | ||
|
|
||
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
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 :)