> On 29. Jul 2020, at 13:59, Oleg Nenashev <[email protected]> wrote: > > 2.250 is a fancy number, so why not? As I previously explained, too similar to 2.150 which was also an LTS baseline. Since there's no other notable difference to 2.249, I would prefer less confusing bug reports over having a nice looking number. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jenkinsci-dev/374FBAD1-9229-4EC1-B333-1B1BF1B299B5%40beckweb.net.
- LTS baseline selection for the successor of 2.235 Oliver Gondža
- Re: LTS baseline selection for the successor of 2.235 Antonio Muñiz
- Re: LTS baseline selection for the successor of 2.... Ullrich Hafner
- Re: LTS baseline selection for the successor o... Daniel Beck
- Re: LTS baseline selection for the success... Oleg Nenashev
- Re: LTS baseline selection for the su... Tim Jacomb
- Re: LTS baseline selection for th... Matt Sicker
- Re: LTS baseline selection for the su... Daniel Beck
- Re: LTS baseline selection for th... Mark Waite
- Re: LTS baseline selection fo... Jesse Glick
- Re: LTS baseline selection fo... Mark Waite
- Re: LTS baseline selection fo... Daniel Beck
- Re: LTS baseline selection fo... ogondza
- Re: LTS baseline selection fo... Oleg Nenashev
