[RESULT] [VOTE] Fork branch '4.0' into branches '4.0' and '4.1'

[Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>]

Let's declare this vote as failed.


On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Mujtaba Chohan <mu...@apache.org> wrote:

> +1.  4.0 named as 4.x or 4, 3.0 named as 3.x or 3
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Andrew Purtell <ap...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:34 AM, James Taylor <ja...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The original intent of the 4.0 branch was meant to host all 4.x
> > > releases. In general releases are compatible in the following manner:
> > > - a minor release must be deployed first on the server and then at any
> > > point later on the client. It will require a rolling restart, but no
> > > downtime.
> > > - a patch release may be deployed on the client and server in either
> > > order. If the patch requires the server jar to be deployed (which
> > > would likely be most of the time), it will require a rolling restart
> > > and no downtime will be required.
> > > - a major release may require downtime, as it may require the client
> > > and server side to both be deployed together.
> > >
> >
> > If you like ​I could make an alternate proposal to rename the branches to
> > branch-4 (and branch-3), then. ​
> >
> > Having a branch named '4.0' that builds releases 4.1.x is bound to
> confuse,
> > IMHO.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> >    - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
> >
>



-- 
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)