Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cayenne.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of malcolm.edgar@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.214.171 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=SFbopIz4tRMe9cwPc96JOCJEnyFJ/eHvxz4UbEA6yYpOi2vbqP9dfSGBjKuOnLA1tQ
         j6ZNUzE6zXNmjf320R/O5gSggJUBj3WkJt30kkP0+Wess3NKE13tanUzGU2q/3EnuQW8
         dcjYBuvhOsfEK2Zyp0BnuvGRoX0B4ABOfcBec=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5ED6AA01-DF7C-4F50-A8FD-D788A27E5357@objectstyle.org>
References: <4BE91E78.9040402@maniatis.org>
	 <D200CD8B-8410-42CB-B74F-D9C4529ED49A@masslight.net>
	 <5ED6AA01-DF7C-4F50-A8FD-D788A27E5357@objectstyle.org>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 20:45:34 +1000
Message-ID: <AANLkTilM1TV0gS7OUv2MHyRLyhcY9Cm1CI4lprlPlwy8@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Supported versions
From: Malcolm Edgar <malcolm.edgar@gmail.com>
To: dev <dev@cayenne.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

+1

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Andrus Adamchik <andrus@objectstyle.org> w=
rote:
>>> Are we advanced enough to have a formal policy of supporting two major
>>> versions of Cayenne? If so, something we should put on the web site?
>
> Absolutely. I think we do need a clear road map and a page on the website
> (not on wiki) listing what releases we support and what is the sunset dat=
e
> for the oldest of those. When closing the Jiras against discontinued
> releases, we need to make sure they do not affect newer releases, otherwi=
se
> such jiras simply need to be rescheduled.
>
> Now the question of what we put on that road map. here are my thoughts:
>
> 1. Now: I think that while 1.2 and 2.0 are the same thing, it helps if we
> announce now that we stopped supporting 1.2. 1.2 adds to the effort of
> preparing a release, as it is done from SourceForge infrastructure. So le=
ts
> encourage the upgrade.
>
> 2. Nearest future: I'd also like to discontinue support for 2.0.x at some
> point (maybe after we have a 3.0.1 maintenance out). The upgrade path to =
3.0
> is rather trivial, so I don't see why we should keep it around. Also the =
new
> 3.1 doesn't support upgrade from 2.0, only from 3.0, so this is yet anoth=
er
> reason to encourage people to upgrade now to avoid pain in the future.
>
> Evgeny, you committed a bunch of fixes to the 2.0 branch, so maybe you ca=
n
> give us your point of view on that. I am open to anything, including maki=
ng
> a 2.0.5 before announcing 2.0.x sunset, or keeping it around longer, but =
if
> we have no good reasons to expect a 2.0.6, I'd rather we encourage our us=
ers
> to upgrade to 3.0.
>
> Andrus
>
>
> On May 11, 2010, at 2:17 PM, Michael Gentry wrote:
>>
>> 1.2 and 2.0 are the same release, though. Just different package spaces.
>>
>>
>> On May 11, 2010, at 5:08 AM, Aristedes Maniatis <ari@maniatis.org> wrote=
:
>>
>>> You'll notice that I tagged the 1.2 release on the site as "archived"
>>> that is to imply it is not going to get future updates. Should I close =
the
>>> Jira tasks associated with it and should we send out a formal announcem=
ent
>>> of the end of life of that version?
>>>
>>> Are we advanced enough to have a formal policy of supporting two major
>>> versions of Cayenne? If so, something we should put on the web site?
>>>
>>> Ari
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> -------------------------->
>>> Aristedes Maniatis
>>> GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C =A05EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A
>>
>
>