Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cxf.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of sberyozkin@gmail.com designates
 209.85.214.41 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <4F97E58B.9070101@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:52:43 +0100
From: Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110617 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cxf.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Drop 2.3.x patches....
References: <3214981.D1Y6oeHOWI@dilbert.dankulp.com>
In-Reply-To: <3214981.D1Y6oeHOWI@dilbert.dankulp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 24/04/12 19:30, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> Just wanted to open up a discussion about dropping support for 2.3.x.
> 2.3.0 was release over 18 months ago.  Since then, 2.4.x was released over a
> year ago and 2.5.x  6 months ago. (and 2.6 last week).   Thus, there has
> been plenty of opportunity (a whole year) for people to upgrade to newer
> versions.
>
> Right now, we have 4 branches we're supporting (2.6(trunk)/2.5/2.4/2.3) and
> we're likely soon going to make a 2.6 branch and open up trunk for 2.7 work
> adding yet another one.  Dropping 2.3 will simplify things a bit for us.
>
> The major "con" to it is that there are still a lot of folks using 2.3.x.
> According the Nexus stats of central, last month, 2.3.3 was still the second
> most downloaded version. (next to 2.5.2)   However, if they are on 2.3.3
> which was released over a year ago, they haven't been grabbing the latest
> patches anyway so producing more patches won't really matter to them.
>
> In any case, I'm think about doing one more 2.3.x release (2.3.11) which
> would be announced as the end of the 2.3.x line.    Obviously if any
> security issues pop up we can push another release in the future, but
> basically end the regular patch releases.
>
Sounds good, 2.3.11 will be the best one in the 2.3.x line :-)
> Any objections or other thoughts?
>
+1


Cheers, Sergey