At 12:01 PM 9/8/2004, Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: >On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, [ISO-8859-15] André Malo wrote: >> Actually I'm talking about the two proposals on the top. If you are >> interested in backport voting, you need to touch the STATUS file anyway and >> should follow the commits there. > >[...] And no, I don't agree that the flow is 2.1->2.0->1.3. >The trees are way too different for that to make any sense.
In the case of bug fixes, I absolutely agree. 1.3 is (and should be) a distinct track for solving its bugs. When all is said and done, the patches to 1.3 and 2.0 for bugs 'common' to both versions rarely look or act quite alike. In the case of 'features', I tend to agree they should prove themselves in 2.1-dev first. Consider how we 'broke' CanonicalName handling (for transparent load balancing across ports.) "Obviously great" features have a way of introducing insidious side effects. Bill
