> 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?