Hi,
On 14.12.19 12:59, Benjamin Marwell wrote:
I do know companies who still use 3.2.3 and they don't dare to update
because of a misconfiguration.
If we start to use this argument we need to go back and support Maven 2
as well cause it's used somewhere in the wild ...
Should we care? Or perhaps they should have bought support contracts
for such use cases?
If people don't upgrade/maintain their build for more than five++ years
I think there is a big issue...
And yes maybe the should find some consultant to fix their issues...
Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise
If we say "support the 3.6 branch fur such amount of time" it also
means reacting to vulnerabilities in time, doesn't it?
But yes, better have a clear statement than no statement at all.
Am Sa., 14. Dez. 2019 um 12:43 Uhr schrieb Michael Osipov <micha...@apache.org>:
Am 2019-12-14 um 12:31 schrieb Karl Heinz Marbaise:
Hi,
based on the history we have defined Maven 2.X EoL five years after the
last release...[1]
Based on that I would suggest to define End Of Life for the following
Maven versions cause their release date is also five years ago...
Maven 3.0.5...3.2.5 included.
We have never backported some things in the last five year...
WDYT?
That sounds like a plan, but not honest enough. If we include 3.3.9 and
3.5.4 we ultimately say that we still support this and patch it. But we
don't! In tickets we require always to try to the latest version.
What I would see as honest is that we would support 3.6.x with bugfixes
for some amount of time and have a line moving forward, 3.7.x.
Everything else is just a lie.
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
