On 11/27/12 1:24 PM, Thomas Neidhart wrote: > On 11/27/2012 04:30 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote: >> Hello. >> >> Quoting from the previous thread about this subject: >>> As far as I am concerned, 3.1 could be released anytime now. >> [Luc Maisonobe, September 14, 2012] >> >> Plenty of needed work has been done since then. Most of it could have been >> done _after_ releasing 3.1! >> Most of the current contributors agree that releases should happen more >> often; yet they don't. >> I would like that a set of objective criteria be written down that would >> define when a new release is deemed adequate. [I had suggested some.] >> This discussion should be held in another thread since (as the above quote >> summarizes), it was agreed that the 3.1 release was due. >> >> At this point, I propose to start the release process using the "old" (about >> to be deprecated) procedure. >> Indeed, I surely do not want the release to be further delayed because of >> "newbie" mistakes on using the new procedure (CMS for the site, etc.). >> Let's "divide and conquer": We release 3.1 now and allow users to benefit >> from the many new features and bug fixes. While they test the new release, >> we begin to prepare 3.2 with the new procedure, starting with the site.
+1 Depending on how much happens bet 3.1 and the next one, we could consider a 3.1.1. I have some uncommitted stuff to address MATH-672, but I don't want to hold up the release for this. If I can't get it finished before the first RC hits, I will get it in; otherwise it can wait. Phil >> >> OK? > +1 > > Thomas > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
