William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Nick Kew wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
Hi dev@,
FYI, I intend to roll 2.3.0-alpha, our first release from trunk in
about 3 years, on Saturday December 6th.
How about starting the process not with a roll, but with a proposed
software configuration and feature set?
IMHO, that's the difference between having a dialog and having something
in hand to comment on. With the .0-alpha tarball, people could make a
specific comment, such as [T +10 days from now]...
Nick Kew writes:
Just OTTOMH and from a quick look at 2.3.0, I see we are missing:
- Expression parser (I dropped the ball there but intend to
pick it up)
and then that's an action item on yourself for 2.3.1. I don't think
anyone expects 2.3.0 to be feature complete, that's why we let 2.3.x
hang around a little while.
+1 to creating a candidate.
Exactly -- basing the first alpha around a long feature list will just
delay it too long. Version numbers are cheap, and when a feature is
done, it goes into the next alpha :-)
IMO one of the lessons of 2.1.x is that having 5-10 alpha releases are
just fine, as long as they are labeled as such, and it significantly
helps the code base in a relatively short period, over just continuing
on with trunk, like we have for the last 3 years.
-Paul
