On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Jeff Trawick <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote: >> Any others with time to look thru 2.0.65's STATUS file. >> There are a handful of "showstoppers" that I'm thinking >> about "deferring" and pushing ahead with the 2.0.65 release. > > I'll try to find a little time. > > My 2 cents (which I won't throw at any group of 3 that wants to put > out a 2.0.nnn): I don't think we should "defer" anything. Given the > lack of time+interest, IMO the only 2.0.x after 2.0.65 should be to > resolve unintended regressions introduced with 2.0.65, and bugs left > unfixed in 2.0.65 can remain. Then we wash our hands of it.
+1 and will try to look as well this week.
