My personal preference is #2 The reasoning behind this is that we'd be introducing yet another versioning scheme into the mix that we already have. This might be confusing to our users and as John hinted at might not attract as many users.
John Casey wrote: > Okay, > > Let's put it to a vote. We have two options: > > 1. Release the current release candidate as milestone 1 of the 2.1.0 > codeline. The version for this release would be 2.1.0-M1. > > The advantage of this approach is that it keeps is (relatively) focused > on only three simultaneous codebases, not four. It provides a stable > foundation for building out a small set of new features for a final GA > release of 2.1.0. This release will have no new features, and its only > goal is backward compatibility with the maximum stability possible. To > me, this isn't enough to distinguish it from 2.0.x. However, the > implementation details are such that it deserves to be separate. > > The disadvantage is that a -M1 release may not attract as many users, > and the performance/stability gains may not be compelling enough to > overcome the psychological barrier of moving from 2.0.9 to 2.1.0-M1. > > 2. Release the current release candidate as 2.1.0 GA. > > The advantage here is that the work we've put into stabilizing this RC > is probably more worth of a GA release, and by calling it 2.1.0 we can > tell our users how solid we think it is. Additionally, calling this > 2.1.0 means that the only thing we could do for 2.1.1, 2.1.2, etc. would > be to fix any regressions that cropped up without adding risk from new > features. > > The major disadvantage is that it will mean that some of us are adding > new features to 2.2.0 (parent-versioning, reactor changes, etc.) while > others are trying to push out regression fixes on 2.0.x and 2.1.x, while > still others are introducing large-scale changes on the 3.0.x branch. > I'm personally not sure we can drive four parallel codelines to release > in a timely manner. > > So, let's vote. Just indicate whether you support #1 or #2. > > My vote is for #1. > > Thanks, > > -john > -- Dennis Lundberg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
