Re: Googling for documentation

["William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

On 5/10/2012 7:18 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
> 
>>
>> 1) Are the 2.0 docs at their end-of-life soon? (or should this be
>> declared by dev@?)
> 
> This should be based on statistics, not gut feelings. However, my gut feeling is that the
> time is nigh. How long has it been since 2.2.0?

If we agree to never again release 2.0 on the dev@ list, and actively retire 2.0 just
as we had done with 1.3, problem solved.  But I'm not seeing it solved yet.  I had hoped
to tag and roll 2.0.65 final at some point but it doesn't seem like there is any energy
here to actually go forward with integrating security fixes and rolling something out.
Does anyone have a different perspective?

Re: Googling for documentation

[Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>]

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 7:17 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On 5/10/2012 7:18 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 1) Are the 2.0 docs at their end-of-life soon? (or should this be
>>> declared by dev@?)
>>
>> This should be based on statistics, not gut feelings. However, my gut feeling is that the
>> time is nigh. How long has it been since 2.2.0?
>
> If we agree to never again release 2.0 on the dev@ list, and actively retire 2.0 just
> as we had done with 1.3, problem solved.  But I'm not seeing it solved yet.  I had hoped
> to tag and roll 2.0.65 final at some point but it doesn't seem like there is any energy
> here to actually go forward with integrating security fixes and rolling something out.
> Does anyone have a different perspective?

IOW, does anyone want to review what we have in 2.0.x/STATUS?

Tangent: The 4317 fix has a regression noted on this list, so there's
no use rolling 2.0.65 until that is resolved.

-- 
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
http://emptyhammock.com/