On 05/06/2009 10:31 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On May 6, 2009, at 4:20 PM, Graham Leggett wrote: > >> Jim Jagielski wrote: >> >>> I'll stop worrying about 2.2 when 2.4 comes closer to being a reality. >>> >>> Not saying that releasing 2.4 isn't worth it, but there have been >>> stops and >>> starts all along the way, and I think we need to be clear on what we >>> expect 2.4 to be. Until then, we have no clear defining line on when >>> 2.4 is "done." >> >> Is there anything additional that we want v2.4 to do over and above what >> it does now? >> > > Well, that's the question, isn't it? I can't align the idea > of trunk being a candidate for 2.4 and trunk being a place for > people to experiment... > > What do we want 2.4 to be and do. And how. > > Once we define (and agree) to that, we know how close (or far) > trunk is. It sounds like we have some set that wants to break > trunk apart and totally refactor a lot of it, and that's a big +1. > It's also not a 3-4 month effort :) It also sounds like there > are people who want 2.4 to be an upgrade to 2.2 as 2.2 was compared > to 2.4, and a big +1 to that as well. But BOTH of these are using > the exact same dev branch, and there's no general agreement on which > we want... if you get my point ;) > > If we branch off 2.4 right now from trunk, and say that this becomes > our next main release, and the idea is to clean up what is there, > and, for new experimental stuff, develop on trunk 1st and then > backport to 2.4, I'll jump right on in, since it means code will > be out and released and *used* sooner!
Again a full +1 to all this. Regards Rüdiger
