I would also suggest making an explicit commit to the branch stating it is
EOL.
Thanks,
--Konstantin
On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:59 PM Wangda Tan wrote:
> Thank you all for suggestions. Let me send a vote email to mark 2.6, 2.7,
> 3.0 EOL.
>
> - Wangda
>
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 9:34 AM Akira
Thank you all for suggestions. Let me send a vote email to mark 2.6, 2.7,
3.0 EOL.
- Wangda
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 9:34 AM Akira Ajisaka wrote:
> +1
>
> Thank you for the discussion.
>
> -Akira
>
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 5:51 AM Wei-Chiu Chuang
> wrote:
> >
> > +1
> > I feel like one year
+1
Thank you for the discussion.
-Akira
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 5:51 AM Wei-Chiu Chuang wrote:
>
> +1
> I feel like one year of inactivity is a good sign that the community is not
> interested in the branch any more.
>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 3:14 AM Wangda Tan wrote:
>
> > Hi folks,
> >
>
+1
I feel like one year of inactivity is a good sign that the community is not
interested in the branch any more.
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 3:14 AM Wangda Tan wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Want to hear your thoughts about what we should do to make some branches
> EOL. We discussed a couple of times
For what it's worth, in HBase we've been approximating which Hadoop
lines are EOL by looking at release rates and specifically CVE
announcements that include an affected release line but do not include
a fix for that release line. Our current approximation[1] lists 2.6,
2.7, and 3.0 as dead. So
