I wouldn't be quiet so harsh. Of course stability is great and should
always be strived for. But so is innovation.
For me the key is all about compatibility. If a feature can be added in
such a way that by default nothing changes, then we should lean towards
putting it in. If it cannot be done in a compatible way then it should
be targeted for a future release. But even then, that isn't an ideal
solution. Just because we let people know that 2.1 won't be compatible
doesn't mean people are going to like it. Some may want to stay on 2.0
for quite a while, which means we should be prepared to support it long
past a 2.1 release.
Brian E. Fox wrote:
This is something that I think we don't want to put into 2.0.x at this
point. We need to be focusing on stabilizing the issues and knocking out
regressions, not introducing new places to hose people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
