On 18.10.2010 18:39, Mads Toftum wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:54:27AM -0500, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
With a release on the way with a host of good bits, almost 2 years after its
previous release, it seems time that the group might consider the following
options...
[ ] Leave 2.0.x open to maintenance
[ ] Leave 2.0.x open to security/critical bug fixes only
[ ] Retire 2.0.x (but accumulate patches/apply_to_2.0.64)
While the 3rd option seems mighty tempting, that's moving much too fast.
How long did it take for 1.3 to change between option 2 and 3? 5 years?
Absolutely too long, but jumping 1 to 3 without warning seems a bit
harsh to 3rd party module vendors. My suggestion would be to do 2 now
and announce the switch to 3 for 12 months from now.
+1 (option 2, anounce expected date of switch to 3; maybe do the
announce of the expected date after 2.4 release - if it doesn't slip
away to far)
Rainer
