+1
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Leonardo Uribe <lu4...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1. That will reduce overhead. > > 2012/11/16 Mike Kienenberger <mkien...@gmail.com>: > > +1 > > > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:54 AM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> > wrote: > >> +1 > >> > >> LieGrue, > >> strub > >> > >> PS: vote is open for 72h with lazy consensus (as always if nothing else > stated) > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> > >>> To: My Faces Development <dev@myfaces.apache.org> > >>> Cc: > >>> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 8:25 AM > >>> Subject: [VOTE] switching MyFaces-2.0.x to maintenance mode > >>> > >>>T he JSF-2.0 spec came out in early 2009. There is a > clarification/bugfix release > >>> 2.1 of the spec available since over 2 years now and we actively > maintain > >>> MyFaces-2.1.x > >>> > >>> Thus I like to suggest moving MyFaces-2.0.x into maintenance mode. > >>> > >>> It's purely crazy that we backport any change from 2.1.x to 2.0.x > still. > >>> This is perfectly fine for heavy bugs of course, but not for new > enhancements > >>> and 'featuers'. As we've seen recently this introduces bugs which > >>> are avoidable. > >>> > >>> Maintenance mode means that we will fix blockers and security > vulnerabilities > >>> like we still do in 1.x if required. But we will not do any further > development. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> [+1] move MyFaces-2.0.x into maintenance mode > >>> [+0] I don't care > >>> [-1] no, we still need the latest and greatest improvements in > MyFaces-2.0.x > >>> > >>> LieGrue, > >>> strub > >>> > -- Grant Smith - V.P. Information Technology Marathon Computer Systems, LLC.
