Re: [DISCUSS] Status of 3.0.x...

Indeed, good plan... Sergey On 06/09/17 20:14, Andriy Redko wrote: I think that keeping 3.2.x on master would make sense, at least till 3.2.1. As Dennis pointed out, with Java 9 just a few weeks away we may branch off 3.2 later and work on 3.3 (master) to make it good Jigsaw citizen.

Re: [DISCUSS] Status of 3.0.x...

+1 as well to dropping 3.0.x, and keeping master on 3.2.x for a while. Colm. On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 11:18 PM, Andy McCright wrote: > +1 to keeping 3.2 on master until 3.2.1. I also agree with declaring end > of support for 3.0.X (barring security vulnerabilities).

Re: [DISCUSS] Status of 3.0.x...

> On Sep 6, 2017, at 3:03 PM, Dennis Kieselhorst wrote: > No 2.7.x version within the top 10? I think we should declare 3.0.15 as > the last 3.0.x release. We can make an exception if security fixes are > necessary. The projects I know either still use 2.x or already migrated >

Re: [DISCUSS] Status of 3.0.x...

+1 to keeping 3.2 on master until 3.2.1. I also agree with declaring end of support for 3.0.X (barring security vulnerabilities). Good discussion! Thanks! Andy On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:14 PM Andriy Redko wrote: > I think that keeping 3.2.x on master would make sense, at

Re: [DISCUSS] Status of 3.0.x...

I think that keeping 3.2.x on master would make sense, at least till 3.2.1. As Dennis pointed out, with Java 9 just a few weeks away we may branch off 3.2 later and work on 3.3 (master) to make it good Jigsaw citizen. Supporting only 3.1.x and dropping 3.0.x sounds reasonable, +1 to that.

Re: [DISCUSS] Status of 3.0.x...

Hi! > Just wanted to start a quick discussion about 3.0.x. We’ve historically > done work on the master and then supported two fixes branches. With 3.2.0 > being voted on now, I’m not sure if we would branch the 3.2.x-fixes branch > immediately or wait a bit (we have historically waited a