I should say I was talking more about "should these things be discussed together or separately", not any particular direction we should or should not take, as I didn't want to accidentally steal the topic.
But speaking specifically on that.. saying that we're going to maintain branch-1 lines until at least Feb 2018 definitely makes total sense to me. 2 years overlap with 2.0 might be something we'd want to discuss in some more depth. -Mikhail On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Mikhail Antonov <[email protected]> > wrote: > > ... > > > > Speaking specifically about branch-1 and given 2.0 release > > discussions, is it proper time/thread to also discuss what > > do we want to do with branch-1? Like, say that 1.4 would be > > the last release off this line and hence branch-1 should be > > turned to 1.4, and should we wind down backports to it? > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I would like to see branch-1 be our new long term stable branch and so > to be maintained for roughly as long as 0.98 was: three years from first > release (1.0.0). > > > > ... > > I would definitely not be comfortable retiring branch-1 any time this > CY, given the unknown state of both the 2.0 release process and how > long that branch has been without a release. Three years from 1.0.0 > puts us at February 2018. The 0.98 branch had the benefit of nearly 2 > years overlap with branch-1 releases; should branch-1 have a similar > window with branch-2? > -- Thanks, Michael Antonov
