2.9.0 Support

[Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>]

Hey

What did we agree to for supporting the old 2.9.x branch? I'm just
wondering, since we're still getting tons of bugs filed against that.
While most of them are valid in 3.0.x, we probably should be
backporting to 2.9.

Have people been doing this.  I've been doing this a bit, but I have
to admit that I've been slipping up recently.  What are people's
thoughts on this?

Joe

Re: 2.9.0 Support

[Ian Clelland <ic...@chromium.org>]

On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> So, are we going to do a 2.9.1? Should I be going through all the
> plugins and making sure that everything is backported?
>

I like the idea of releasing 2.9.1 close to Cordova 3.1 -- could we
continue with that up to 2.9.5 with Cordova 3.5? (Cadence-release, of
course :) )

Re: 2.9.0 Support

[Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Ian Clelland <ic...@chromium.org> wrote:
> We should be supporting 2.9 -- I'm pretty sure we've committed to at least
> fixing bugs as they come up.
>

We've committed to it, but to be honest, I stopped doing the backports
when I heard there wasn't going to be a 2.9.1 release, because if
there's not going to be a release of 2.9.1, there's no reason to keep
supporting 2.9.x.  It doesn't work with plugman the same way 3.x does.

> We never discussed whether we would *only* be fixing things that were
> reported on the 2.9 branch, or whether we were going to test the issues
> that were reported on 3.x and backport the fixes. I think, though, that as
> long as the codebases haven't diverged *so much* (as in a complete re-write
> of a given plugin), that we should at least take the time to verify the
> issue -- and the fix -- on 2.9, and release 2.9.x versions when it makes
> sense.
>

Agreed.

So, are we going to do a 2.9.1? Should I be going through all the
plugins and making sure that everything is backported?

Re: 2.9.0 Support

[Ian Clelland <ic...@chromium.org>]

We should be supporting 2.9 -- I'm pretty sure we've committed to at least
fixing bugs as they come up.

We never discussed whether we would *only* be fixing things that were
reported on the 2.9 branch, or whether we were going to test the issues
that were reported on 3.x and backport the fixes. I think, though, that as
long as the codebases haven't diverged *so much* (as in a complete re-write
of a given plugin), that we should at least take the time to verify the
issue -- and the fix -- on 2.9, and release 2.9.x versions when it makes
sense.

If we stick with the idea that bugs are testable, and keep all of the tests
in mobile-spec, then hopefully it shouldn't be much more work to run any
new tests against the current 2.9.x before and after applying a patch that
fixes is in 3.x.

Ian

On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey
>
> What did we agree to for supporting the old 2.9.x branch? I'm just
> wondering, since we're still getting tons of bugs filed against that.
> While most of them are valid in 3.0.x, we probably should be
> backporting to 2.9.
>
> Have people been doing this.  I've been doing this a bit, but I have
> to admit that I've been slipping up recently.  What are people's
> thoughts on this?
>
> Joe

Re: 2.9.0 Support

[Andrew Grieve <ag...@chromium.org>]

I was in the habit of merging bug fixes back into 2.9.x a while ago, but
have also stopped doing that.

If we want 2.9.x to be bug fixes only, then I think it makes sense to spend
some time and cherry-pick changes.
If we want 2.9.x to be new features + bug fixes, then we could just work on
adding pre-bundling logic so that "bin/create" causes plugins to be already
installed. We want pre-bundling logic anyways for things like Android's
"App" plugin.

I suspect what we want is the bug fixes, but that does leave iOS7 support
out of 2.9.x, which makes it somewhat useless. So maybe we should just work
on pre-bundling?


On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Ian Clelland <ic...@chromium.org>wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Carlos Santana <csantana23@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > What is the support statement for 2.9.x  for new OSs?
> >
> > For example:
> > iOS7 not supported on 2.9.x
> > xCode 5 not supported on 2.9.x
> >
> > 2.9.x + bugs only supports:
> > iOS 5 and 6
> > Xcode 4.6.3
> >
>
> That's a good question: 6 months from now, there will probably be very few
> of us with Xcode 4.6 -- most developers will have automatically updated.
> Are we committed to still supporting that as a development platform? Or is
> 2.9.1 going to be the "Hey, you need to support iOS 7 or be rejected from
> the App Store" release?
>
> Is there any value in continuing to support 4.6, if Apple is going to start
> rejecting apps which are built with it?
>
> Ian
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 5:19 AM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
> >
> > > It ends in 3.6 (I would think) as per our 6 month deprec policy.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Shazron <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is relevant, for example, with the iOS 7 fixes for media,
> > > > media-capture, and splashscreen core plugins -- should we backport
> the
> > > > code. They haven't diverged too much - but where does it end for
> > support?
> > > > +1 on defects only (although one can argue these are defects as well)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > You can help!
> > > > > On Sep 27, 2013 2:37 AM, "Smith, Peter" <
> peters@fast.au.fujitsu.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Back when we adopted 2.9.0 we were a bit apprehensive about early
> > > > > > adoption of 3.x, so were quite encouraged to read:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "We understand and respect that there is a huge community of
> > projects
> > > > > > built on PhoneGap 2.0 series and we will continue to support 2.x
> > in a
> > > > > > long lived branch."
> > > > > > http://phonegap.com/blog/2013/06/20/coming-soon-phonegap30/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At the time it seemed quite clear there would be a 2.9.1, but now
> > it
> > > is
> > > > > > not clear at all...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Peter
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: mmocny@google.com [mailto:mmocny@google.com] On Behalf Of
> > > Michal
> > > > > > Mocny
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, 27 September 2013 5:24 AM
> > > > > > To: dev; bowserj@apache.org
> > > > > > Subject: Re: 2.9.0 Support
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sounds less than ideal to have to backport, given that we still
> > > support
> > > > > > the old workflow with 3.0.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, I think we did discuss keeping 2.9 maintained while we
> > iron
> > > > out
> > > > > > 3.0 issues.  I think we should drop 2.9 as soon as users run out
> of
> > > > > > *valid* reasons for not upgrading to 3.0, right?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do users say when you suggest moving to 3.x to get the
> bugfix?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Michal
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hey
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What did we agree to for supporting the old 2.9.x branch? I'm
> > just
> > > > > > > wondering, since we're still getting tons of bugs filed against
> > > that.
> > > > > > > While most of them are valid in 3.0.x, we probably should be
> > > > > > > backporting to 2.9.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Have people been doing this.  I've been doing this a bit, but I
> > > have
> > > > > > > to admit that I've been slipping up recently.  What are
> people's
> > > > > > > thoughts on this?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Joe
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Santana
> > <cs...@gmail.com>
> >
>

Re: 2.9.0 Support

[Ian Clelland <ic...@chromium.org>]

On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Carlos Santana <cs...@gmail.com>wrote:

> What is the support statement for 2.9.x  for new OSs?
>
> For example:
> iOS7 not supported on 2.9.x
> xCode 5 not supported on 2.9.x
>
> 2.9.x + bugs only supports:
> iOS 5 and 6
> Xcode 4.6.3
>

That's a good question: 6 months from now, there will probably be very few
of us with Xcode 4.6 -- most developers will have automatically updated.
Are we committed to still supporting that as a development platform? Or is
2.9.1 going to be the "Hey, you need to support iOS 7 or be rejected from
the App Store" release?

Is there any value in continuing to support 4.6, if Apple is going to start
rejecting apps which are built with it?

Ian


>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 5:19 AM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
>
> > It ends in 3.6 (I would think) as per our 6 month deprec policy.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Shazron <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > This is relevant, for example, with the iOS 7 fixes for media,
> > > media-capture, and splashscreen core plugins -- should we backport the
> > > code. They haven't diverged too much - but where does it end for
> support?
> > > +1 on defects only (although one can argue these are defects as well)
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > > You can help!
> > > > On Sep 27, 2013 2:37 AM, "Smith, Peter" <pe...@fast.au.fujitsu.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Back when we adopted 2.9.0 we were a bit apprehensive about early
> > > > > adoption of 3.x, so were quite encouraged to read:
> > > > >
> > > > > "We understand and respect that there is a huge community of
> projects
> > > > > built on PhoneGap 2.0 series and we will continue to support 2.x
> in a
> > > > > long lived branch."
> > > > > http://phonegap.com/blog/2013/06/20/coming-soon-phonegap30/
> > > > >
> > > > > At the time it seemed quite clear there would be a 2.9.1, but now
> it
> > is
> > > > > not clear at all...
> > > > >
> > > > > Peter
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: mmocny@google.com [mailto:mmocny@google.com] On Behalf Of
> > Michal
> > > > > Mocny
> > > > > Sent: Friday, 27 September 2013 5:24 AM
> > > > > To: dev; bowserj@apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: 2.9.0 Support
> > > > >
> > > > > Sounds less than ideal to have to backport, given that we still
> > support
> > > > > the old workflow with 3.0.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, I think we did discuss keeping 2.9 maintained while we
> iron
> > > out
> > > > > 3.0 issues.  I think we should drop 2.9 as soon as users run out of
> > > > > *valid* reasons for not upgrading to 3.0, right?
> > > > >
> > > > > What do users say when you suggest moving to 3.x to get the bugfix?
> > > > >
> > > > > -Michal
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hey
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What did we agree to for supporting the old 2.9.x branch? I'm
> just
> > > > > > wondering, since we're still getting tons of bugs filed against
> > that.
> > > > > > While most of them are valid in 3.0.x, we probably should be
> > > > > > backporting to 2.9.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Have people been doing this.  I've been doing this a bit, but I
> > have
> > > > > > to admit that I've been slipping up recently.  What are people's
> > > > > > thoughts on this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joe
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Carlos Santana
> <cs...@gmail.com>
>

Re: 2.9.0 Support

[Carlos Santana <cs...@gmail.com>]

What is the support statement for 2.9.x  for new OSs?

For example:
iOS7 not supported on 2.9.x
xCode 5 not supported on 2.9.x

2.9.x + bugs only supports:
iOS 5 and 6
Xcode 4.6.3





On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 5:19 AM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:

> It ends in 3.6 (I would think) as per our 6 month deprec policy.
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Shazron <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This is relevant, for example, with the iOS 7 fixes for media,
> > media-capture, and splashscreen core plugins -- should we backport the
> > code. They haven't diverged too much - but where does it end for support?
> > +1 on defects only (although one can argue these are defects as well)
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
> >
> > > You can help!
> > > On Sep 27, 2013 2:37 AM, "Smith, Peter" <pe...@fast.au.fujitsu.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Back when we adopted 2.9.0 we were a bit apprehensive about early
> > > > adoption of 3.x, so were quite encouraged to read:
> > > >
> > > > "We understand and respect that there is a huge community of projects
> > > > built on PhoneGap 2.0 series and we will continue to support 2.x in a
> > > > long lived branch."
> > > > http://phonegap.com/blog/2013/06/20/coming-soon-phonegap30/
> > > >
> > > > At the time it seemed quite clear there would be a 2.9.1, but now it
> is
> > > > not clear at all...
> > > >
> > > > Peter
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: mmocny@google.com [mailto:mmocny@google.com] On Behalf Of
> Michal
> > > > Mocny
> > > > Sent: Friday, 27 September 2013 5:24 AM
> > > > To: dev; bowserj@apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: 2.9.0 Support
> > > >
> > > > Sounds less than ideal to have to backport, given that we still
> support
> > > > the old workflow with 3.0.
> > > >
> > > > However, I think we did discuss keeping 2.9 maintained while we iron
> > out
> > > > 3.0 issues.  I think we should drop 2.9 as soon as users run out of
> > > > *valid* reasons for not upgrading to 3.0, right?
> > > >
> > > > What do users say when you suggest moving to 3.x to get the bugfix?
> > > >
> > > > -Michal
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hey
> > > > >
> > > > > What did we agree to for supporting the old 2.9.x branch? I'm just
> > > > > wondering, since we're still getting tons of bugs filed against
> that.
> > > > > While most of them are valid in 3.0.x, we probably should be
> > > > > backporting to 2.9.
> > > > >
> > > > > Have people been doing this.  I've been doing this a bit, but I
> have
> > > > > to admit that I've been slipping up recently.  What are people's
> > > > > thoughts on this?
> > > > >
> > > > > Joe
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>



-- 
Carlos Santana
<cs...@gmail.com>

Re: 2.9.0 Support

[Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io>]

It ends in 3.6 (I would think) as per our 6 month deprec policy.


On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Shazron <sh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is relevant, for example, with the iOS 7 fixes for media,
> media-capture, and splashscreen core plugins -- should we backport the
> code. They haven't diverged too much - but where does it end for support?
> +1 on defects only (although one can argue these are defects as well)
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
>
> > You can help!
> > On Sep 27, 2013 2:37 AM, "Smith, Peter" <pe...@fast.au.fujitsu.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Back when we adopted 2.9.0 we were a bit apprehensive about early
> > > adoption of 3.x, so were quite encouraged to read:
> > >
> > > "We understand and respect that there is a huge community of projects
> > > built on PhoneGap 2.0 series and we will continue to support 2.x in a
> > > long lived branch."
> > > http://phonegap.com/blog/2013/06/20/coming-soon-phonegap30/
> > >
> > > At the time it seemed quite clear there would be a 2.9.1, but now it is
> > > not clear at all...
> > >
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: mmocny@google.com [mailto:mmocny@google.com] On Behalf Of Michal
> > > Mocny
> > > Sent: Friday, 27 September 2013 5:24 AM
> > > To: dev; bowserj@apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: 2.9.0 Support
> > >
> > > Sounds less than ideal to have to backport, given that we still support
> > > the old workflow with 3.0.
> > >
> > > However, I think we did discuss keeping 2.9 maintained while we iron
> out
> > > 3.0 issues.  I think we should drop 2.9 as soon as users run out of
> > > *valid* reasons for not upgrading to 3.0, right?
> > >
> > > What do users say when you suggest moving to 3.x to get the bugfix?
> > >
> > > -Michal
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hey
> > > >
> > > > What did we agree to for supporting the old 2.9.x branch? I'm just
> > > > wondering, since we're still getting tons of bugs filed against that.
> > > > While most of them are valid in 3.0.x, we probably should be
> > > > backporting to 2.9.
> > > >
> > > > Have people been doing this.  I've been doing this a bit, but I have
> > > > to admit that I've been slipping up recently.  What are people's
> > > > thoughts on this?
> > > >
> > > > Joe
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: 2.9.0 Support

[Shazron <sh...@gmail.com>]

This is relevant, for example, with the iOS 7 fixes for media,
media-capture, and splashscreen core plugins -- should we backport the
code. They haven't diverged too much - but where does it end for support?
+1 on defects only (although one can argue these are defects as well)


On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:

> You can help!
> On Sep 27, 2013 2:37 AM, "Smith, Peter" <pe...@fast.au.fujitsu.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Back when we adopted 2.9.0 we were a bit apprehensive about early
> > adoption of 3.x, so were quite encouraged to read:
> >
> > "We understand and respect that there is a huge community of projects
> > built on PhoneGap 2.0 series and we will continue to support 2.x in a
> > long lived branch."
> > http://phonegap.com/blog/2013/06/20/coming-soon-phonegap30/
> >
> > At the time it seemed quite clear there would be a 2.9.1, but now it is
> > not clear at all...
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mmocny@google.com [mailto:mmocny@google.com] On Behalf Of Michal
> > Mocny
> > Sent: Friday, 27 September 2013 5:24 AM
> > To: dev; bowserj@apache.org
> > Subject: Re: 2.9.0 Support
> >
> > Sounds less than ideal to have to backport, given that we still support
> > the old workflow with 3.0.
> >
> > However, I think we did discuss keeping 2.9 maintained while we iron out
> > 3.0 issues.  I think we should drop 2.9 as soon as users run out of
> > *valid* reasons for not upgrading to 3.0, right?
> >
> > What do users say when you suggest moving to 3.x to get the bugfix?
> >
> > -Michal
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hey
> > >
> > > What did we agree to for supporting the old 2.9.x branch? I'm just
> > > wondering, since we're still getting tons of bugs filed against that.
> > > While most of them are valid in 3.0.x, we probably should be
> > > backporting to 2.9.
> > >
> > > Have people been doing this.  I've been doing this a bit, but I have
> > > to admit that I've been slipping up recently.  What are people's
> > > thoughts on this?
> > >
> > > Joe
> > >
> >
> >
>

RE: 2.9.0 Support

[Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io>]

You can help!
On Sep 27, 2013 2:37 AM, "Smith, Peter" <pe...@fast.au.fujitsu.com> wrote:

> Back when we adopted 2.9.0 we were a bit apprehensive about early
> adoption of 3.x, so were quite encouraged to read:
>
> "We understand and respect that there is a huge community of projects
> built on PhoneGap 2.0 series and we will continue to support 2.x in a
> long lived branch."
> http://phonegap.com/blog/2013/06/20/coming-soon-phonegap30/
>
> At the time it seemed quite clear there would be a 2.9.1, but now it is
> not clear at all...
>
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mmocny@google.com [mailto:mmocny@google.com] On Behalf Of Michal
> Mocny
> Sent: Friday, 27 September 2013 5:24 AM
> To: dev; bowserj@apache.org
> Subject: Re: 2.9.0 Support
>
> Sounds less than ideal to have to backport, given that we still support
> the old workflow with 3.0.
>
> However, I think we did discuss keeping 2.9 maintained while we iron out
> 3.0 issues.  I think we should drop 2.9 as soon as users run out of
> *valid* reasons for not upgrading to 3.0, right?
>
> What do users say when you suggest moving to 3.x to get the bugfix?
>
> -Michal
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hey
> >
> > What did we agree to for supporting the old 2.9.x branch? I'm just
> > wondering, since we're still getting tons of bugs filed against that.
> > While most of them are valid in 3.0.x, we probably should be
> > backporting to 2.9.
> >
> > Have people been doing this.  I've been doing this a bit, but I have
> > to admit that I've been slipping up recently.  What are people's
> > thoughts on this?
> >
> > Joe
> >
>
>

RE: 2.9.0 Support

["Smith, Peter" <pe...@fast.au.fujitsu.com>]

Back when we adopted 2.9.0 we were a bit apprehensive about early
adoption of 3.x, so were quite encouraged to read: 

"We understand and respect that there is a huge community of projects
built on PhoneGap 2.0 series and we will continue to support 2.x in a
long lived branch."
http://phonegap.com/blog/2013/06/20/coming-soon-phonegap30/

At the time it seemed quite clear there would be a 2.9.1, but now it is
not clear at all...
 
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: mmocny@google.com [mailto:mmocny@google.com] On Behalf Of Michal
Mocny
Sent: Friday, 27 September 2013 5:24 AM
To: dev; bowserj@apache.org
Subject: Re: 2.9.0 Support

Sounds less than ideal to have to backport, given that we still support
the old workflow with 3.0.

However, I think we did discuss keeping 2.9 maintained while we iron out
3.0 issues.  I think we should drop 2.9 as soon as users run out of
*valid* reasons for not upgrading to 3.0, right?

What do users say when you suggest moving to 3.x to get the bugfix?

-Michal


On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey
>
> What did we agree to for supporting the old 2.9.x branch? I'm just 
> wondering, since we're still getting tons of bugs filed against that.
> While most of them are valid in 3.0.x, we probably should be 
> backporting to 2.9.
>
> Have people been doing this.  I've been doing this a bit, but I have 
> to admit that I've been slipping up recently.  What are people's 
> thoughts on this?
>
> Joe
>

Re: 2.9.0 Support

[Michal Mocny <mm...@chromium.org>]

Sounds less than ideal to have to backport, given that we still support the
old workflow with 3.0.

However, I think we did discuss keeping 2.9 maintained while we iron out
3.0 issues.  I think we should drop 2.9 as soon as users run out of *valid*
reasons for not upgrading to 3.0, right?

What do users say when you suggest moving to 3.x to get the bugfix?

-Michal


On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Joe Bowser <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey
>
> What did we agree to for supporting the old 2.9.x branch? I'm just
> wondering, since we're still getting tons of bugs filed against that.
> While most of them are valid in 3.0.x, we probably should be
> backporting to 2.9.
>
> Have people been doing this.  I've been doing this a bit, but I have
> to admit that I've been slipping up recently.  What are people's
> thoughts on this?
>
> Joe
>

Re: 2.9.0 Support

[Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io>]

We should continue to do this for defects for the time being.
On Sep 26, 2013 9:17 PM, "Joe Bowser" <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey
>
> What did we agree to for supporting the old 2.9.x branch? I'm just
> wondering, since we're still getting tons of bugs filed against that.
> While most of them are valid in 3.0.x, we probably should be
> backporting to 2.9.
>
> Have people been doing this.  I've been doing this a bit, but I have
> to admit that I've been slipping up recently.  What are people's
> thoughts on this?
>
> Joe
>