+1 to maintain 3 version lines.
I think the next focus should be 2.0.0 than 1.3.0.
On 2/12/18, 11:40 PM, "Jungtaek Lim" <kabh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I've noticed that we are providing 4 different version lines (1.1.x, 1.0.x,
>0.10.x, 0.9.x) in download page, and I expect we will add one more for
>1.2.0. Moreover, we have one more develop version line (2.0.0 - master)
>which most of development happens there.
>Recently we're releasing 3 version lines (1.0.6 / 1.1.2 / 1.2.0)
>simultaneously and it took heavy effort to track all the RCs and verify all
>of them. I guess release manager would take more overhead of releasing, and
>it doesn't make sense for me if we continue maintaining all of them.
>Ideally I'd like to propose maintaining three version lines: 2.0.0 (next
>major) / 1.3.0 (next minor - may not happen) / 1.2.1 (next bugfix) and
>making others EOL (that respects semantic versioning and even other
>projects tend to maintain only two version lines), but if someone feels too
>aggressive, I propose at least we explicitly announce EOL to 0.x version
>lines and get rid of any supports (downloads) for them.
>Would like to hear your opinion.
>Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)