Justin Erenkrantz wrote: >Well, there are a number of issues that I think we'd need to hash >out before thinking about what comes next. Should we open 2.1 >now? I don't think so. But, should we in three or four months? >Perhaps - it depends how 2.0 goes. >
I think we also need a more solid definition of what differentiates 2.1 development from 2.0 maintenance--and, for that matter, what differentiates 2.1 from 3.0. The definitions currently in the ROADMAP file are mostly a list of things that didn't fit in 2.0. IMHO, now is a good time to discuss in more general terms what 2.1 and 3.0 mean--both from a developer's perspective and from a user's perspective. E.g., "2.1 will give users improved modularity and configurability, and 3.0 will provide best-in-class scalability and performance" (or something like that :-) --Brian
