On May 28, 2015 5:31 AM, "Jim Jagielski" <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > Why just 2 options and why *these* 2? > > The VOTE is worthless and obviously designed to stop discussion. > I am not voting.
By all means then, don't. To answer your question, these are the only two directions the project has taken over the last 15 years, as I documented this afternoon. Counterexamples would be welcome. This conversation reoccurs consistently with the same two opposing agendas; 1. Prevent committers from burning cycles on old branches, vs. 2. Support old branches while they are widely deployed. The many threads you can read in our archives follow the same pattern each time. In general, Jeff's much more diplomatic answer becomes the consensus, and the project moves on. To answer your more detailed question; > > On May 28, 2015, at 12:44 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > > > > Choose one; > > > > [ ] EOL the 2.2.x branch effective 5/31/16; strictly security releases to that date This 12 month window seems to have universal consensus from the email archives, once a consensus is reached. Other numbers are often mentioned, and it always boils back down to a year. > > [ ] Defer a 2.2.x EOL decision for 6 months and re-consider this proposal in Nov, '15. This too is the typical window for revisiting cold threads (actually, more like 6-18/mos, so I picked the short end of that range). Your particular post was a month after the question was asked and answered and (notably) not contradicted. If there was disagreement there was a perfectly valid thread to resume and debate the particulars of either a prompt EOL or a longer window of time. Your top-post clearly advocated for the first choice, but perhaps was incomplete? I am very receptive to the details you left out of that top post, that would have offered us a third-way that none of us expected, if only you had the free cycles the other morning to flesh out that unique proposal. Sincerely, please suggest something we haven't considered before, otherwise this is the same old same old again.
