On 24 Feb 2014, at 2:48 am, Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess we need to clear up what I mean by a maintenance line... > > We *can/may* cut releases on maintenance / security line... Does not mean > we *will* more that for non-security/maintenance lines there is ZERO > possibility of us cutting a release... As another data point, my reaction was the same as as Dennis' on first reading. I think the doc could be simplified - perhaps it is more helpful to describe what will be done, not what can/may be done, but then have avenues to add those when possible. Say, start with the last stable release as a the maintenance/security line, but add others where there are willing volunteers to continue maintaining it. IIUC, if a security issue came in the next few weeks, it'd probably be fixed in 3.2.x and 3.0.x (not upgrading due to some plugin incompatibilities), but not 3.1.x (expected to be a smooth upgrade to 3.2.x). Is that what would realistically happen? On the components/plugins/wagon side, I don't think there's much need for older lines, since there are unlikely to be downstream users that can't upgrade to the latest. The only exception I could think of historically was when Site was maintained for Maven 2. - Brett -- Brett Porter @brettporter http://brettporter.wordpress.com/ http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
