Isn't that postponing the discussion we're having here on those controversial changes? I'd rather give it an extra effort rather than pushing it back and loosing all the context once we have to tackle 3.5.
On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Stephen Connolly < [email protected]> wrote: > I like that plan, but let's call that 3.4.0 and let these other changes go > for either 3.5.0 > > Does someone want to take a stab at forking master from an earlier point > (perhaps get infra to let us rewrite master back to the fork point and push > the current state to a branch?) > > On Sun 18 Dec 2016 at 19:45, Igor Fedorenko <[email protected]> wrote: > > > No, I meant just eclipse->apache move, not all changes that went into > > > > maven-resolver. The idea is to have a release branch we can maintain > > > > while things stabilize in master. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Regards, > > > > Igor > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 18, 2016, at 12:46 PM, Michael Osipov wrote: > > > > > Am 2016-12-18 um 18:44 schrieb Igor Fedorenko: > > > > > > I wonder if it makes sense to release 3.3.10 with just the new aether > > > > > > and give 3.4 more time to bake on master. > > > > > > > > > > Changing a dependency with so many changes recently in a fix version? > > > > > Doesn't sound right to me. > > > > > > > > > > M > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > -- > Sent from my phone >
