wiki: Go-Release-Cycle has an out of date statement on backporting policy

[dmitshur]

There is a statement in the Release Maintenance section of the Go Release Cycle wiki page that is out of date:

Minor releases to address non-security problems for Go 1.x stop once Go 1.x+1 is released.

I plan to edit the page to make it say:

Minor releases to address non-security problems for Go 1.x stop once Go 1.x+2 is released.

This is because we've accepted a backport policy clarification in proposal #34536, which makes it clear that the last two releases are supported equally.

(Filing this issue before making the change, as documented in the first paragraph of that wiki page.)

/cc @rsc @andybons @cagedmantis @toothrot

[dmitshur]

Note that the very next sentence in that section talks about security problems being fixed in the last two releases:

Minor releases to address non-security problems for Go 1.x stop once Go 1.x+1 is released.

Minor releases to address security problems for Go 1.x stop once Go 1.x+2 is released. For more about security updates, see the security policy.

So there is also an option to combine the two into something like:

Minor releases to address non-security and security problems for Go 1.x stop once Go 1.x+2 is released. For more about security updates, see the security policy.

[dmitshur]

This issue has received 2 thumbs up from release team members, and no concerns have been raised. It's small and obvious fix, so it doesn't seem like more discussion is needed.

I'll proceed with making the change.

[dmitshur]

Fixed in wiki commit e05fa49b.

[mvdan]

I think the text is now repetitive and confusing:

Minor releases to address non-security problems for Go 1.x stop once Go 1.x+2 is released.
Minor releases to address security problems for Go 1.x stop once Go 1.x+2 is released.

Why have two almost exact sentences? I had to read them twice to make sure the only difference was security vs non-security. They should be merged, in my opinion.

[dmitshur]

@mvdan Do you think the suggested combined phrasing in #37097 (comment) would work well?

[mvdan]

Sure. Though saying "non-security and security" feels a bit weird, like saying "all important and non-important bugs" when one could just say "all bugs".