On 4/7/14, 10:53 AM, Keith Turner wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Josh Elser<[email protected]> wrote:
>I agree that our release "model" doesn't fully allow for a proper breadth
>of "changes" to the codebase.
>
>My view of the current model is as Christopher described (long-term
>support and bugfix); however, how it was also described by a few others,
>the community wants "more" than this model provides
>
>And, sorry for the tangent, but I be strongly in favor of 1.7 == 2.0 for
>numerous reasons, one of the biggest being this discussion.
>
>As far as this discussion goes, I don't think we have the ability to
>maintain explicit bug-fix only (as described by "only fixes that cause
>errors") since things often get refactored internally for better test
>coverage, now invalidated assumptions, etc. I'd be in favor of playing
>fast-and-loose for the 1.x releases how we have (keeping each other honest)
>and follow an explicit model that doesn't have ambiguity in regards to
>interpretation for 2.0 (what is now 1.7).
Another argument for trying to better define the 1.[456].[0-9] release
going forward is saving our own time. We will be living with these lines
for a while. Continually debating each change that goes into them is a
complete waste of our time.
I agree completely. This is the first time we've had this discussion --
certainly won't be the last.
