We should be supporting 2.9 -- I'm pretty sure we've committed to at least fixing bugs as they come up.
We never discussed whether we would *only* be fixing things that were reported on the 2.9 branch, or whether we were going to test the issues that were reported on 3.x and backport the fixes. I think, though, that as long as the codebases haven't diverged *so much* (as in a complete re-write of a given plugin), that we should at least take the time to verify the issue -- and the fix -- on 2.9, and release 2.9.x versions when it makes sense. If we stick with the idea that bugs are testable, and keep all of the tests in mobile-spec, then hopefully it shouldn't be much more work to run any new tests against the current 2.9.x before and after applying a patch that fixes is in 3.x. Ian On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey > > What did we agree to for supporting the old 2.9.x branch? I'm just > wondering, since we're still getting tons of bugs filed against that. > While most of them are valid in 3.0.x, we probably should be > backporting to 2.9. > > Have people been doing this. I've been doing this a bit, but I have > to admit that I've been slipping up recently. What are people's > thoughts on this? > > Joe
