+1 to EOL'ing branch-1 and all other branch-1.x too (if they are still
active at all)
On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 8:53 AM, Andrew Purtell
wrote:
> EOL of branch-1 doesn’t mean we take down the 1.6.0 release. It would be
> fine to leave that in place. That can be a separate, future, discussion,
>
EOL of branch-1 doesn’t mean we take down the 1.6.0 release. It would be fine
to leave that in place. That can be a separate, future, discussion, although if
branch-1 becomes EOL its eventual removal would be certain. The question is
really if we plan to maintain branch-1 going forward. Based
My only concern is about the performance, once in a while there'll be
some emails like "2.x.y is slower than 1.x.y".
On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 6:03 AM Andrew Purtell wrote:
> Is it time to consider EOL of branch-1 and all 1.x releases ?
>
> There doesn't seem to be much developer interest in
Thanks for the write-up Andrew. +1 on its EOL'ing.
S
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 3:03 PM Andrew Purtell wrote:
> Is it time to consider EOL of branch-1 and all 1.x releases ?
>
> There doesn't seem to be much developer interest in branch-1 beyond
> occasional maintenance. This is understandable.
Is it time to consider EOL of branch-1 and all 1.x releases ?
There doesn't seem to be much developer interest in branch-1 beyond
occasional maintenance. This is understandable. Per our compatibility
guidelines, branch-1 commits must be compatible with Java 7, and the range
of acceptable versions
