* "Mladen Turk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The question to backport is IMO more political then technological. The users
> will switch to 2.1/2.2 no mater if the ASF artificially 'hides' the
> technology from 2.0. Of course the pragmatism will make a 2.0 alive for
> couple of years (as well as 1.3), but that doesn't mater. What maters is a
> stable user-aware solution. If that prime principle (although conservative)
> means that we do not have enough proven infrastructure to test the software,
> but just rely on user experience, then I'm in favor to make all the
> 'advanced technology' as 2.2 goal. OTOH hiding something just to 'boost' a
> new version is not fair.
I think, you've got something wrong. As of the branch to 2.1, we've marked 2.0
stable and more or less freezed. That has nothing to do with being fair or
not. The development just happens in 2.1 and beyond. Big changes to 2.0 are
always dangerous with regard to stability. (therefore RTC policy).
Backporting all stuff from 2.1 to 2.0 doesn't do any good.
nd
--
sub the($){+shift} sub answer (){ord q
[* It is always 42! *] }
print the answer
# André Malo # http://pub.perlig.de/ #
