On Nov 22, 2007 9:34 AM, Ulf Dittmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ant said: > > If we just return to the 2.4 status quo then the 3.0 releases will > > never get > > announced, so unless someone feels particularly strongly about it > > i'd rather > > leave it broken like this as at least then it prompts everyone to > > help try > > to get 3.0 published properly. > > Am I understanding correctly that you're proposing to leave the > download page as it is?
Only until all the permissions problems get resolved, which sounds like it wont be long. (As an aside, I would argue that even after the 3.0 release, 2.4 > should remain available, and visibly linked to.) > I agree with you, the 2.x and 3.x versions have completely different APIs so some people will stay on 2.x for the foreseeable future and we should keep both available. ...ant
