I would rather pickup 2.3.1 in the next 2 weeks as planned, rather than another 2 months. :-) for 2.4
-D On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Andreas Pieber <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> >> >>> +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/>
