William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > > At 04:22 PM 8/30/2002, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >Ian Holsman wrote: > > > > > > what we need most is a stable tree for a couple of months not spliting > > > out to a 2.1 tree > > > >++1 > > So... for the next couple months, we grind new ideas and development > to a halt (as things were when I got here in the spring of 2000), until the > powers that be sanctify a new tree? >
If this is broken in 2.0, then we fix it here. Backwards compatibility is tried to be ensured, but it doesn't prevent obvious logical fixes. Branching off a 2.1 with the present state of 2.0 seems like a real spread of developer resources. It's like re-modeling the bedroom while the house is still being built. -- =========================================================================== 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
