Would it make sense to rename the 3.0 branch to FUTURE or something that doesn’t involve a numerical version number?
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:13 PM, Emmanuel Lécharny <elecha...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi guys, > > I have made a mistake when I cut the latest release (MINA 2.0.18), which > breaks the API - actually, two errors -. > > The first one was to inject a new event in the IoHandler, expecting > users to extend IoHandlerAdapter instead of implementing IoHandler > > The second one was related to the removal of 2 messages (SESSION_SECURED > and SESSION_UNSECURED). That was due to a big commit that included those > changes, which weren't expected to be applied immediately. > > > In order to fix this breakage, here is what I'll do : > > - first cut a 2.0.19 that is compatible with teh 2.0.17 API, in order to > have the application dependning on this API to work without any change > > - and second cut a 2.1.0 with all the changes. > > In the short term, both versions will be maintained, in teh long run, > 2.1 will be the new maintained version. > > There is still a 3.0.0 branch that require some love, for the record :-) > > Sorry for the mess... > > -- > Emmanuel Lecharny > > Symas.com > directory.apache.org > >
