+1 to maintaining 3 version lines as suggested by Jungtaek.

On 2/13/18, 9:51 AM, "Arun Iyer on behalf of Arun Mahadevan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

    +1 to maintain 3 version lines.
    I think the next focus should be 2.0.0 than 1.3.0.
    On 2/12/18, 11:40 PM, "Jungtaek Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
    >Hi devs,
    >I've noticed that we are providing 4 different version lines (1.1.x, 1.0.x,
    >0.10.x, 0.9.x) in download page, and I expect we will add one more for
    >1.2.0. Moreover, we have one more develop version line (2.0.0 - master)
    >which most of development happens there.
    >Recently we're releasing 3 version lines (1.0.6 / 1.1.2 / 1.2.0)
    >simultaneously and it took heavy effort to track all the RCs and verify all
    >of them. I guess release manager would take more overhead of releasing, and
    >it doesn't make sense for me if we continue maintaining all of them.
    >Ideally I'd like to propose maintaining three version lines: 2.0.0 (next
    >major) / 1.3.0 (next minor - may not happen) / 1.2.1 (next bugfix) and
    >making others EOL (that respects semantic versioning and even other
    >projects tend to maintain only two version lines), but if someone feels too
    >aggressive, I propose at least we explicitly announce EOL to 0.x version
    >lines and get rid of any supports (downloads) for them.
    >Would like to hear your opinion.
    >Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR)
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB