On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 14:25 -0600, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > On 11/11/2011 1:42 PM, Issac Goldstand wrote: > > -0 > > > > I DO want the EOL, but not until after 2.4 has a couple of GAs, if only > > because folks might not update twice. > > They've had six years? I'm talking deprecating 2.0, not 2.2, > for 2.4 -or- 2.2. Lots of choices, including putting off any > upgrade. > > They have as long as they like to update. The 2.0.65 would not > suddenly stop functioning. But if it doesn't work as they > desire, they need to pick 2.2.x or 2.4.x, and there won't be > some 2.0.66 at some arbitrary date a year or so out (as the > past couple releases have been spaced apart). > > This action sets up one clear signal, there will not be another > 2.0.x to follow, so don't wait around for one, look to the 2.4 > and 2.2 stable releases if you want something the project will > keep updating, no matter how infrequently in the case of 2.2. > > Bill
Agreed, EOL of 2.0 is _long_ overdue
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
