On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's please try to not get snarky here, Dave. We're all trying to have a > reasonable discussion, get to the real issues, and figure out how we can > work through them without stomping on anyone. As always, you are welcome to > fork for you personal reasons -- I don't want to force you down that path, > but this is going to take some more time to resolve. > > Obligatory thank you to Sean for writing up his opinions: it helps us all > understand what would be acceptable presently for him to retract his veto > in addition to what he sees as the current issues. > > What I took away from his response: we need to (re)visit what 1.7.0 is > really going to be. Rightfully so, we left 1.7 as a intermediate release to > let us continue to develop, with the intent to do 2.0.0 as the next fancy > thing. Assuming that is still the plan (which has not been otherwise > changed), Sean's objection is reasonable. API changes definitely doesn't > seem to be in scope for something that was to be a very minor "major" > release. > > That being said, in my opinion, 2.0.0 seems quite a ways off still. I've > started considering 1.7.0 to be another "normal" major release, rather than > a "minor" one. If we're all in agreement here, I think it would make sense > to apply our normal API rules to 1.7.0 and then make sure we minimize churn > between 1.7.0 and 2.0.0 for any additions. > > Sean, is that an acceptable avenue to redirect this discussion? Have I > missed any other sticking points? That the above wouldn't address? > > Yes, that's reasonable. -- Sean
