+0 - similar concerns as Sebastien. I hope that we also don't introduce any new unproposed features, or architectural changes to 4.2 at the end of the cycle, which this extension still is.
Also - it's probably worth discussing a time based release with milestones beyond which feature proposals are frozen and ones after which the code is frozen. -- Prasanna., On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 05:33:10PM -0400, Sebastien Goasguen wrote: > -0 [binding] > > I am torn between sticking to the schedule and delay to make sure we can > merge things cleanly. > Would rather not merge and release on-time, but it would be a pitty. > > On Jun 3, 2013, at 5:09 PM, Kevin Kluge <kevin.kl...@citrix.com> wrote: > > > +1 [ binding ] > > > > I've been concerned that releases every four months were too > > aggressive for people to absorb given the complexity of some > > deployments and upgrades. With the current 4.1 delay and 4.2 plan > > we would expect two major releases within two months of each > > other. I'd prefer a bigger date shift for 4.2, but I see little > > appetite for that in these discussions. So I will +1 this > > proposal as a reasonable compromise. > > > > FWIW I doubt we'll get many more features in 4.2 with this. As > > Animesh noted the feature proposal date has passed so we have an > > upper bound on the additional changes for this four weeks. I > > believe this proposal will improve the quality of 4.2 on its > > planned release date as a result. > > > > -kevin > > ------------------------ Powered by BigRock.com
