I’ll comment on the broader issue, but right now I want to elaborate on 3.11/January/arbitrary cutoff date.
Doesn’t matter what the original plan was. We should continue with 3.X until all the 4.0 blockers have been committed - and there are quite a few of them remaining yet. So given all the holidays, and the tickets remaining, I’ll personally be surprised if 4.0 comes out before February/March and 3.13/3.14. Nor do I think it’s an issue. — AY On 16 November 2016 at 00:39:03, Mick Semb Wever (m...@thelastpickle.com) wrote: On 4 November 2016 at 13:47, Nate McCall <zznat...@gmail.com> wrote: > Specifically, this should be "new stuff that could/will break things" > given we are upping > the major version. > How does this co-ordinate with the tick-tock versioning¹ leading up to the 4.0 release? To just stop tick-tock and then say yeehaa let's jam in all the breaking changes we really want seems to be throwing away some of the learnt wisdom, and not doing a very sane transition from tick-tock to features/testing/stable². I really hope all this is done in a way that continues us down the path towards a stable-master. For example, are we fixing the release of 4.0 to November? or continuing tick-tocks until we complete the 4.0 roadmap? or starting the features/testing/stable branching approach with 3.11? Background: ¹) Sylvain wrote in an earlier thread titled "A Home for 4.0" > And as 4.0 was initially supposed to come after 3.11, which is coming, it's probably time to have a home for those tickets. ²) The new versioning scheme slated for 4.0, per the "Proposal - 3.5.1" thread > three branch plan with “features”, “testing”, and “stable” starting with 4.0? Mick
