There doesn't seem to be any objection to this so I'll go ahead and send a
quick note to the users list to let them know.
Dan
On Tuesday, April 24, 2012 02:30:42 PM 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
+1Eric JohnsonPrinciple Technical Writer | FuseSource Corp.emjohn...@fusesource.com | fusesource.comoffice: (781) 280-4174skype: finnmccumial | twitter: @finnmccumialblog: http://documentingit.blogspot.com/On Apr 25, 2012, at 7:52 AM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:On 24/04/12 19:30, Daniel Kulp wrote:Just
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 ye
+1.
Colm.
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 3:15 AM, Jim Ma wrote:
> +1
>
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Willem Jiang wrote:
>
>> It makes sense.
>> +1 for it.
>>
>>
>> On 4/25/12 2:30 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Just wanted to open up a discussion about dropping support for 2.3.x.
>>> 2.3.0 was
+1
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Willem Jiang wrote:
> It makes sense.
> +1 for it.
>
>
> On 4/25/12 2:30 AM, 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
>> y
It makes sense.
+1 for it.
On 4/25/12 2:30 AM, 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 plen
+1
Freeman
On 2012-4-25, at 上午2:30, 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
Puh-lease do! +1.
Jeff
On Apr 24, 2012, at 2:30 PM, 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, t
+1 - non binding.
On Apr 24, 2012, at 2:42 PM, Christian Schneider wrote:
> +1
>
> Christian
>
> Am 24.04.2012 20:30, schrieb Daniel Kulp:
>> 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
>>
+1
Christian
Am 24.04.2012 20:30, schrieb Daniel Kulp:
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 oppor
: dev@cxf.apache.org
Betreff: [DISCUSS] Drop 2.3.x patches
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
