+1 on 2.2. keep the concept that 2.x is a "feature bump" and 2.x.x is a patch. It doesn't have to correlate to the size of the release. -1 to no improvements to 2.x. I don't think it should be a policy. If people want to "maintain" older releases, thats up to them. I would hope that as things improve on 3.1, people would stop maintaining older releases.
Joshua On Apr 3, 2012, at 8:30 AM, Pieter Hintjens wrote: > Very nice work. I've backported it to 2.1, it'll go in the next release. > > Small point for improvement, please write issues as problems rather > than solutions, so e.g. "Send/receive timeouts missing, makes REQ > sockets less useful". > > -Pieter > > On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Joshua Foster <[email protected]> wrote: >> I back ported the fix in https://github.com/zeromq/zeromq2-1/pull/45 >> The issue is logged in https://zeromq.jira.com/browse/LIBZMQ-349 >> >> Joshua >> >> _______________________________________________ >> zeromq-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
