Actually I would even prefer Achims proposal. Since we almost always add new features this would make the transition ways more logical. Maybe we should also combine this with timed released (2 months?). Micros are only bug-fix backports and we can cut those as required.
Kind regards, Andreas On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Achim Nierbeck <bcanh...@googlemail.com> wrote: > +1, and actually I think we might just skip 2.3.1 and call it a 2.4 after > this one is applied :D > > what do you think > > regards, Achim > > > 2013/1/15 Ioannis Canellos <ioca...@gmail.com> > >> +1 on creating a 2.4 branch. >> Personally I am ok at adding new features on micro releases as long as they >> don't change the API, especially considering the speed at which we bring >> out new major and minor ones. >> >> -- >> *Ioannis Canellos* >> * >> >> ** >> Blog: http://iocanel.blogspot.com >> ** >> Twitter: iocanel >> * >> > > > > -- > > Apache Karaf <http://karaf.apache.org/> Committer & PMC > OPS4J Pax Web <http://wiki.ops4j.org/display/paxweb/Pax+Web/> Committer & > Project Lead > OPS4J Pax for Vaadin <http://team.ops4j.org/wiki/display/PAXVAADIN/Home> > Commiter & Project Lead > blog <http://notizblog.nierbeck.de/>
