On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 2:19 PM Marc P. <marc.par...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ". I just think that pointer should probably currently point at > branch-1.7 and should only be updated when we can show that we've done > enough due diligence that the majority of downstream folks can expect > an upgrade that doesn't come with surprises." > > +1 > This is a good way to phrase it. I agree with the principle described here, but not with the presumption of 1.7 being stable. FWIW, I think 1.8.1 satisfies this criteria. But, I don't think 1.7 ever satisfied this over 1.6. With 1.7, there were (and still are) surprises.
