It's going out with our next release to QA, next week.
> On Nov 29, 2015, at 7:40 AM, Dominik Psenner <dpsen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Jeremiah, whats the state of your deployment? Have you made a notice of all > the bugs I had introduced and that they are fixed in trunk? > >> On 29 Nov 2015 4:38 p.m., "Dominik Psenner" <dpsen...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 29 Nov 2015 10:54 a.m., "Jeremiah Gowdy" <jerem...@gowdy.me> wrote: >> > >> > Agreed. We have to start drawing the drawing the line. .NET is so >> > backwards compatible, I think it's pretty left behind to leave .NET 2.0 >> > and beyond behind. As a carrier grade application we are far beyond >> > needing 2.0 support. >> >> Beware, there are devices out there that support only .net 3.5. i am glad we >> could come to a sound agreement. >> >> > >> > > On Nov 28, 2015, at 11:01 PM, Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org> wrote: >> > > >> > >> On 2015-11-27, Dominik Psenner wrote: >> > >> >> > >> In my opinion, all releases after 1.2.15 should be built against: >> > > >> > >> * mono 3.5 >> > >> * mono 4.0 >> > >> * .net 3.5 >> > >> * .net 4.0 >> > >> * .net 4.5 >> > >> * .net cp 3.5 >> > >> * .net cp 4.0 >> > > >> > > [...] >> > > >> > >> So what if we announce EOL for all the other builds? We can still try >> > >> to be >> > >> backwards compatible to ancient framework versions, but whoever needs a >> > >> binary for it should build it from source. >> > > >> > > That's fine with me, but I should be the last one to call the shots. >> > > >> > > Stefan
