On May 27, 2015 9:46 AM, "Jeff Trawick" <traw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Jeff Trawick <traw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: >>> >>> Anyone else think it's time to EOL 2.2 and focus >>> on 2.4 and the next gen? My thoughts are that http/2 >>> and mod_h2 will drive the trunk design efforts and so >>> it would be nice to focus energy on 2.4 and later... >> >> People here focus their energy on whatever they want. It takes a small number of people to keep a stable branch going (technically 3, but in practice a slightly higher number). Instead of the group choosing EOL or only-security-fixes-of-some-minimal-severity or something else for a stable branch based on what many people think is interesting to them for whatever reason, I think that the project should limit its concern to ensuring that the community understands the state of the branch and that it is EOL-ed when a sufficient number of people don't care. > > actually, "when a sufficient number of people don't care" is what I'm arguing against :) make that "when an insufficient number of people care"
+1, well thought out, aligns with the historical commentary (just some of which I pointed out in the historical data points post) >> What we need to know for the 2.2.x branch is basically this: >> >> Developers (committers or not): >> >> [ X ] I am willing to help resolve security issues in the 2.2.x branch. >> [ X ] I am willing to help address non-security issues in the 2.2.x branch. >> >> PMC members: >> >> [ X ] I am willing to test and vote on proposed 2.2.x releases. >> (This is not a call for vote; I'm suggesting a very different mindset towards 2.2.x from "nice to focus energy on" and "time to EOL 2.2 and focus on".) (: Glad that others felt free to respond to this as a poll.
