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  

Reply via email to