+1 on moving the stable pointer, but before that, I'd suggest some notification in our @user mailing list. According to our 1.x usage survey <https://s.apache.org/1wVL> Andrew took last month, we have 47% usage on 1.2 and 22% on 1.3, JFYI.
Best Regards, Yu On 10 March 2018 at 06:10, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote: > I think Francis Liu might be wanting to make more releases of 1.3. If so, > and for as long as he wants to do it, we shouldn't mark it EOM obviously. > > As for moving the stable pointer to 1.4, I think we have consensus to do > it, and if the RM for 1.2 wants to move on and declare it EOM in about six > months, at that time if not sooner we will have to do it anyway. > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 10:38 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 6:40 PM, Sean Busbey <bus...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Hi folks! > > > > > > I've been working to get the test suite back to green on branch-1.2; > > > we have a lot of branches to track backport for and a non-trivial > > > amount of tech debt across all of them from the nightlies being > > > offline. > > > > > > After the stable pointer moves forward from branch-1.2 I'll keep doing > > > RM duty for it for ~6 months. Ideally I'd be doing monthly releases, > > > but that will largely depend on keeping the build green. After that, > > > it'd go EOM. > > > > > > What do y'all think about moving the stable pointer to branch-1.4 as > > > of the 1.4.2 release? > > > > > > If we move the stable pointer directly to 1.4 and skip over 1.3, what > > > do folks think about marking it EOM after we get a 1.3.2 release out? > > > > > > > > > Makes sense to me. Interested in Andrew's take. > > S > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrew > > Words like orphans lost among the crosstalk, meaning torn from truth's > decrepit hands > - A23, Crosstalk >
