Re: [DISCUSS] Status of 3.0.x...

2017-09-07 Thread Sergey Beryozkin
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.

Re: [DISCUSS] Status of 3.0.x...

2017-09-07 Thread Colm O hEigeartaigh
+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).

Re: [DISCUSS] Status of 3.0.x...

2017-09-06 Thread Daniel Kulp
> 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 >

Re: [DISCUSS] Status of 3.0.x...

2017-09-06 Thread Andy McCright
+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

Re: [DISCUSS] Status of 3.0.x...

2017-09-06 Thread Andriy Redko
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.

Re: [DISCUSS] Status of 3.0.x...

2017-09-06 Thread Dennis Kieselhorst
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

[DISCUSS] Status of 3.0.x...

2017-09-06 Thread Daniel Kulp
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