+1 to maintain only 2.2.x branch Le jeu. 24 sept. 2026, 17:43, <[email protected]> a écrit :
> I agree with Gary. > > Jeff > > > On Sep 24, 2026, at 2:40 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > I think we should start by dropping the oldest from maintenance ASAP. > > People will likely only update once CVEs start accumating on that > > non-manintened release. I'd be OK only supporting the current release. > > > > Gary > > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2026, 04:18 Emmanuel Lécharny <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> Hi! > >> > >> We currently have 3 active branches: > >> - 2.0.X started in 2008 > >> - 2.1.X started in 2019 > >> - 2.2.X started in 2022 > >> > >> It costs a lot to maintain those three branches, especially when it > >> comes to backport issues. I have spent a hell of time managing CVE's in > >> late spring, with some backport to those old branches. > >> > >> I'm not sure we want to still maintain them. > >> > >> OTOH, the downloads stats are quite surprising: > >> > >> 2.2.X represent 57% of the monthly downloads, 2.1.X 9,82% and 2.0.X 30% > >> (and FTR 1.1.X represents 7%(!!) of all the downloads. Quite good for a > >> 18 years old defunct version...) > >> > >> So what do you think? Should we focus on 2.2.X, and tell the world we > >> will stop maintaining the two other branches? (we can also offer a grace > >> period...) > >> > >> Thanks! > >> > >> -- > >> ------------------------ > >> Emmanuel Lécharny > >> [email protected] > >> [email protected] > >> ------------------------ > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> 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] > >
