Can you clarify what "backport it" means?
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 07:16:28PM -0400, dlmarion wrote: > Personally I think this discussion is headed in the wrong direction. I would > suggest picking a release numbering policy. Then, develop the features for > the release and adjust the release number based on the client api changes > caused by the changes in the release. If someone needs a feature but cant > afford the client api change, then try to backport it. We should try to move > forward. > > > > <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Adam Fuchs > <[email protected]> </div><div>Date:10/08/2014 6:55 PM (GMT-05:00) > </div><div>To: [email protected],Jeremy Kepner <[email protected]> > </div><div>Subject: Re: Deprecation removal for 1.7.0 </div><div> > </div>What's the right level of review? Should we have a public announcement > board of some sort on the website, or is a request for comment on the > user list sufficient? > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Jeremy Kepner <[email protected]> wrote: > > Perhaps the process should be changed to require review prior to deletion. > > We can't assume all our users are always scanning the e-mail list. > > It is a reasonable expectation that we won't break their code. > >
