Indeed, good plan...
Sergey
On 06/09/17 20:14, Andriy Redko wrote:
I think that keeping 3.2.x on master would make sense, at least till 3.2.1. As
Dennis pointed out,
with Java 9 just a few weeks away we may branch off 3.2 later and work on 3.3
(master) to make it good
Jigsaw citizen.
+1 as well to dropping 3.0.x, and keeping master on 3.2.x for a while.
Colm.
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 11:18 PM, Andy McCright
wrote:
> +1 to keeping 3.2 on master until 3.2.1. I also agree with declaring end
> of support for 3.0.X (barring security vulnerabilities).
> On Sep 6, 2017, at 3:03 PM, Dennis Kieselhorst wrote:
> No 2.7.x version within the top 10? I think we should declare 3.0.15 as
> the last 3.0.x release. We can make an exception if security fixes are
> necessary. The projects I know either still use 2.x or already migrated
>
+1 to keeping 3.2 on master until 3.2.1. I also agree with declaring end
of support for 3.0.X (barring security vulnerabilities).
Good discussion! Thanks!
Andy
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:14 PM Andriy Redko wrote:
> I think that keeping 3.2.x on master would make sense, at
I think that keeping 3.2.x on master would make sense, at least till 3.2.1. As
Dennis pointed out,
with Java 9 just a few weeks away we may branch off 3.2 later and work on 3.3
(master) to make it good
Jigsaw citizen. Supporting only 3.1.x and dropping 3.0.x sounds reasonable, +1
to that.
Hi!
> Just wanted to start a quick discussion about 3.0.x. We’ve historically
> done work on the master and then supported two fixes branches. With 3.2.0
> being voted on now, I’m not sure if we would branch the 3.2.x-fixes branch
> immediately or wait a bit (we have historically waited a
Just wanted to start a quick discussion about 3.0.x. We’ve historically done
work on the master and then supported two fixes branches. With 3.2.0 being
voted on now, I’m not sure if we would branch the 3.2.x-fixes branch
immediately or wait a bit (we have historically waited a bit). Are