nicholas a. evans
nicholas a. evans
Oh, although I doubt that it makes any difference for this issue, you should use RFC4315 for UIDPLUS (or RFC9051, which includes UIDPLUS). RFC2359 is obsolete (and was already obsolete...
@shugo @hsbt Are you okay with bumping the minimum ruby version for the 0.5.x releases? As a policy, I'd like to only change the minimum required ruby when we bump...
@shugo @hsbt Does this match your understanding? Does it seem right to you? Relevant to the top version in the table, #276 bumps the minimum ruby requirement.
@shugo Good question. I had assumed that we _already_ have an implicit commitment to maintaining older versions when their matching ruby version is still in being maintained. I figured that...
So my goal was to mirror [ruby's branch maintenance policy](https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/downloads/branches/): net-imap's branches would be in "normal maintenance" as long as their matching ruby branches are in "normal maintenance", and the...
@shugo So I guess generic proposal is this: |branch |net-imap |ruby |maintenance level | |--------|---------|---------------|-----------------------------| |master |current |main (dev) |new features and deprecations| |vx.{y-1}|current-1|current stable |"normal maintenance" | |vx.{y-2}|current-2|previous stable|"normal...
@shugo Because #93 is such a big change to existing usage, I split the deprecation warnings into a separate PR. I'd like to take a look at [the top reverse...
> FYI, `warn(msg, category: :deprecated)` doesn't show warnings by default. However, Net::IMAP users may not use `-W:deprecated`.... Thanks. I had forgotten about that. If I remember correctly, I did try...
👍🏻 Looks good to me. Thanks @shugo!
@shugo @hsbt I did add my "approved" PR review, but I assume we should wait until either a) 2024-06-01 00:00:00 UTC or b) we have everyone's explicit approval before merging...