After getting things a bit sorted out on my side, it looks like is not exactly a need to deprecate 2.1.x, since it is not marked as a maintained branch anywhere - especially on the download page.
As for 2.0.x, the reason why it is still marked as a maintained branch and "best available" release is that the differences between 2.1.x (introducing plugins and source code breaking changes) and 2.0.x led to 2.0.x being maintained for a while, including applying important bug and security fixes. Fact is, though, that no one seems to be maintaining it any longer - especially regarding security it lacks serious fixes. So if there is anything to deprecate, it should be the 2.0.x branch AFAIC. For branches like 2.1.x, which simply got replaced by newer releases, we might want to make it more clear to users that they should try to stay with the most recent "non-breaking" releases rather that with unsupported versions such as 2.1.x. That said, I think we are lacking a decent versioning scheme that helps users to decide what to do. We got into that situation by coining the term "Struts 2" as kind of a brand, which narrowed our versioning scheme significantly. If we weren't nailed to staying with the 2 in front, we might have had more reasonable versions like 2.0.x 2.1.x -> 3.0.x (breaking changes) 2.2.x -> 3.1.x (non-breaking, serious improvements though) 2.3.x -> 3.2.x (again non-breaking) 3.x -> 4.x (major refactorings, breaking API changes) Thus we would have had an easy to understand scheme of MAJOR.MINOR.MAINTENANCE[.PATCH] whereas MAJOR indicates API changes (vice versa, stability), MINOR new features and improvements, MAINTENANCE bug fixes and PATCH mostly single and urgent security fixes. At last for the next breaking change release, we should be clear what to do. The version term 3.x was already coined, so do we feel good with giving up the "brand" Struts 2? Do we want to call it "Struts 2, version 3.0.whatever"? Do we feel like renaming "Struts 2" to "Struts 3", although this might cause some user expectations as if the shift from "Struts 2" to "Struts 3" would be as groundbreaking as the shift from "Struts 1" to "Struts 2", which of course isn't quite the case? What are your thoughts? - René PS: Gee, "Struts NG" wasn't such a bad naming suggestion at all ... :) Am 11.10.11 21:59, schrieb Maurizio Cucchiara: > Hi guys, > As René pointed out (see http://s.apache.org/2hn) we should seriously > take into consideration to deprecate 2.1.x version. > Another thing that I have just noticed is about the full releases > present on the download page (http://s.apache.org/GFV): why there is a > 2.0 version and not a 2.1? > We are going to release 2.3, so I think is the right time to afford this > topic. > > I guess we should open up a vote. > > Twitter :http://www.twitter.com/m_cucchiara > G+ :https://plus.google.com/107903711540963855921 > Linkedin :http://www.linkedin.com/in/mauriziocucchiara > > Maurizio Cucchiara > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org
