A few points/concerns: At 1:15 PM -0700 8/28/02, Aaron Bannert wrote: >On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 03:42:53PM -0400, Ryan Bloom wrote: >> Just the same one I've had all along. Fix it in 2.0. If it is a major >> config change, then we document it. We have made changes like this >> before. > >I would consider this to be part of 2.0, even if we call it 2.1. >Let me broaden this up a little with some general goals that I >consider to be important. Let's take each of these goals on their >own and consider their merit or feasibility: > >1) More frequent releases
Of course, not if it means each new release destroys some sort of backwards compatibility. It would be painful, IMO, in this particular case to hit someone who just made the transition to 2.0 to then be hit with a 2.1 upgrade. We need to recall that in addition to a large developer community, there's also a much larger *user* one :) >2) We target the auth features for a release we will call 2.1 unless things are horribly wrong with the 2.0, which they aren't *that* bad, then this would by personal choice. Again, this is mostly with my "user community" hat on. -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
