Supporting 2.2.x....

[Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org>]

With the release of 2.3.0 and moving the trunk to 2.4 development, we're now 
in the 3 branches situation again.   With my new job and such, I really don't 
have as much time to deal with the merging and such than I used to.   Thus, 
2.2.12 (probably in early december) will likely be the last version of 2.2.x 
that I'm going to be involved in.     I'm happy to continue pushing 2.3.x and 
of course trying  to get 2.4.0/3.0 ready.  (I hope 2.4/3.0 won't take too 
long.   2.3 took 18months which is WAY WAY too long.   I'd like that to be 6 
months or so.)

Thus, there are really two options:
1) Stop supporting 2.2.x and push people toward 2.3.x.   2.3.x is not a huge 
upgrade so I really don't see a huge issue with this.  We've gone out of our 
way to make things work fairly seemlessly without requiring wacky endorsing 
things and such.   Yes, there are dependency updates (spring, jetty, etc...), 
but the old versions we used in 2.2 aren't supported anymore either.

2) Someone else steps up and starts doing the work to maintain and release 
2.2.x.

Thoughts?


-- 
Daniel Kulp
dkulp@apache.org
http://dankulp.com/blog

Re: Supporting 2.2.x....

[Christian Schneider <ch...@die-schneider.net>]

  +1 for option 1)

Am 19.10.2010 16:56, schrieb Daniel Kulp:
> With the release of 2.3.0 and moving the trunk to 2.4 development, we're now
> in the 3 branches situation again.   With my new job and such, I really don't
> have as much time to deal with the merging and such than I used to.   Thus,
> 2.2.12 (probably in early december) will likely be the last version of 2.2.x
> that I'm going to be involved in.     I'm happy to continue pushing 2.3.x and
> of course trying  to get 2.4.0/3.0 ready.  (I hope 2.4/3.0 won't take too
> long.   2.3 took 18months which is WAY WAY too long.   I'd like that to be 6
> months or so.)
>
> Thus, there are really two options:
> 1) Stop supporting 2.2.x and push people toward 2.3.x.   2.3.x is not a huge
> upgrade so I really don't see a huge issue with this.  We've gone out of our
> way to make things work fairly seemlessly without requiring wacky endorsing
> things and such.   Yes, there are dependency updates (spring, jetty, etc...),
> but the old versions we used in 2.2 aren't supported anymore either.
>
> 2) Someone else steps up and starts doing the work to maintain and release
> 2.2.x.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>

-- 
----
http://www.liquid-reality.de