I agree with Andrew. I don't think a vote is required. It seems that people who are more for option #2 also said there are pretty ok with option #1 too, while people who are mainly for option #1 said 0 or -1 for options #2 and #3...
So even if I prefer option #2, I think option #1 got more "votes". JM 2013/3/3 Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org>: > I'm not sure that is necessary. I think we can establish consensus without > doing so, but if you like, call a vote. > > > On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Ted <yuzhih...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Do we need to start another thread voting for options 1 and 2 ? >> >> We should make a decision soon so that the next 0.94 release can be made. >> >> Cheers >> >> On Mar 3, 2013, at 5:50 AM, Andrew Purtell <apurt...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> > Concur. +1 on option #1 and #2, with #1 preferred, -1 on #3. >> > >> > On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 10:10 AM, lars hofhansl <la...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> >> So it seems that until we have a stable 0.96 (maybe 0.96.1 or 0.96.2) we >> >> have three options: >> >> 1. Backport new features to 0.94 as we see fit as long as we do not >> >> destabilize 0.94. >> >> 2. Declare a certain point release (0.94.6 looks like a good candidate) >> as >> >> a "long term", create an 0.94.6 branch (in addition to the usual 0.94.6 >> >> tag) and than create 0.94.6.x fix only releases. I would volunteer to >> >> maintain a 0.94.6 branch in addition to the 0.94 branch. >> >> 3. Categorically do not backport new features into 0.94 and defer to >> 0.95. >> >> >> >> I'd be +1 on option #1 and #2, and -1 on option #3. >> >> >> >> -- Lars >> > >> > -- >> > Best regards, >> > >> > - Andy >> > >> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein >> > (via Tom White) >> > > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White)
