Re: EOL for 2.0

2011-09-19 Thread William A. Rowe Jr.
On 9/17/2011 8:59 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: > > On Sep 16, 2011, at 11:59 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > >> On 9/16/2011 12:51 AM, Issac Goldstand wrote: >>> IIRC, we talked about making 2.0 EOL when we make the next release, but >>> I don't think we ever formalized the decision. >>> >>> Does anyo

Re: EOL for 2.0

2011-09-17 Thread Rich Bowen
On Sep 16, 2011, at 11:59 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > On 9/16/2011 12:51 AM, Issac Goldstand wrote: >> IIRC, we talked about making 2.0 EOL when we make the next release, but >> I don't think we ever formalized the decision. >> >> Does anyone have comments for or against announcing 2.0 End

Re: EOL for 2.0

2011-09-17 Thread Ruediger Pluem
On 09/17/2011 12:25 PM, Rainer Jung wrote: > On 16.09.2011 17:59, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: >> On 9/16/2011 12:51 AM, Issac Goldstand wrote: >>> IIRC, we talked about making 2.0 EOL when we make the next release, but >>> I don't think we ever formalized the decision. >>> >>> Does anyone have co

Re: EOL for 2.0

2011-09-17 Thread Rainer Jung
On 16.09.2011 17:59, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > On 9/16/2011 12:51 AM, Issac Goldstand wrote: >> IIRC, we talked about making 2.0 EOL when we make the next release, but >> I don't think we ever formalized the decision. >> >> Does anyone have comments for or against announcing 2.0 End-Of-Life at

Re: EOL for 2.0

2011-09-16 Thread William A. Rowe Jr.
On 9/16/2011 12:51 AM, Issac Goldstand wrote: > IIRC, we talked about making 2.0 EOL when we make the next release, but > I don't think we ever formalized the decision. > > Does anyone have comments for or against announcing 2.0 End-Of-Life at a > set time (say 3 months) following the release of

EOL for 2.0

2011-09-15 Thread Issac Goldstand
IIRC, we talked about making 2.0 EOL when we make the next release, but I don't think we ever formalized the decision. Does anyone have comments for or against announcing 2.0 End-Of-Life at a set time (say 3 months) following the release of 2.4? Issac