On 12 Nov 12:02, David Moreau Simard wrote: > On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 11:37 AM, François Cami <fcami at fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > Version-wise, I plan to deliver 1.9/2.0/2.1/2.2 in separate > > repositories managed by separate centos-release-ansible-{19,20,21,22} > > RPMs. Any issue during the build and test phases will be reported here > > or on IRC. Persistent issues will be posted to the wiki. > > Does upstream Ansible even support as far back as 1.9.x and 2.0.x ? > Are you going to be shipping what are basically EOL and > unsupported/unmaintained versions ? > > Looking at releases [1], the last 2.0.x and 1.9.x versions were both > in April 2016 -- not /that/ old by any stretch but still old enough to > question upstream about their supportability. > > [1]: https://github.com/ansible/ansible/releases > It looks like it would be valuable to have an ansible2 tag -- and repo. Because that is what most users will want (we can keep 21 and 22 for power users that want more API compat.). -- (o- Julien Pivotto //\ Config Management SIG V_/_ https://frama.link/cfgmgmt -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 213 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20161112/0308ee99/attachment-0008.sig>