On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Dylan Schiemann wrote:

We really do not have the people to maintain and support 3 separate
versions of Dojo.

Isn't the "3 separate versions" proposal really just a change in naming
conventions? I don't see how this would add requirements to support. It's
the same amount of work if we deprecated and removed code in 1.x...
inevitably, if we took that route, we'd do a bit more backporting to 1.9.x
and effectively have three versions, and confuse everyone. If we make the
transition from 1.x to 2.x smooth enough, I think we could quickly limit
our backporting in 1.x to security and browser issues.

I believe we are better served by maintaining 1.x for users that need to
support IE before version 9, and working on making 2.x amazing for
modern browsers.

Me too, just call it 3.x :) maintain 2.x, and let go of 1.x.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.dojotoolkit.org/pipermail/dojo-contributors/attachments/20130114/40bb6707/attachment.htm

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts


Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 25 of 33 | next ›
Discussion Overview
groupdojo-contributors @
postedJan 3, '13 at 10:43p
activeJan 15, '13 at 4:07p



site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase