> On Nov 6, 2017, at 12:18 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Reiterating again, that we disagree about who our preferred
> approaches are serving and they are disingenuous toward.
> Again, a value judgement.

Assuming we go ahead and tag 2.5.0, what is your intention
related to 2.4.x? My understanding is that your desire is to
place it under "maintenance mode", that is, no functional
backports to 2.4.x.

Is this correct?

To be honest, I don't care at all what happens re: trunk and
the 2.5.0 tag, etc as long as it does NOT restrict what we
can do for 2.4.x. My fear is that one goal behind tagging 2.5.x
is hamstringing 2.4.x.

So, for the record, just so we are all clear, what is your desire/goal
in all this as far as 2.4.x is related?

Reply via email to