+1 I have a question regarding the following point, rest looks good to me.
>>> * we release 17.12.05 as the last release of R17. What is the minimum supported year for a release? Do we have any policy regarding this? We should support a release for at least 5 year. Thoughts? Thanks & Regards -- Deepak Dixit ofbiz.apache.org On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 2:51 PM Jacopo Cappellato < jacopo.cappell...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jacques, > > It sounds like a good plan to me and I can prepare the artifacts as soon as > we are ready. > We could first publish 17.12.05 and then start the process for 18.12.01; in > the meantime we could tag the new R20 branch. > > Thanks, > > Jacopo > > > On Sun, Dec 20, 2020 at 2:08 PM Jacques Le Roux < > jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > > We have no longer any pending security issues, even post-auth ones (those > > with no CVE). As Marj J. Cox - VP of ASF security - said once to me: > <<"No > > CVE" is a great outcome>> ;) > > > > I propose that > > > > * we release 17.12.05 as the last release of R17. > > * We release 18.12.01 as the first release of R18. > > * That we make R18 our current stable branch, and so R17 the old one. > > * And finally that we freeze a new R20 branch. > > > > What do you people think? > > > > If it's OK with everybody could you handle it, or part of it if we don't > > agree on all, Jacopo? > > > > Thanks > > > > Jaques > > > > >
