\On 8/2/06, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You got me there, Martin :-) It didn't make sense. hehe I do believe the remaining issues can be solved.
No time like the present. The 1.3.5 build is tagged, and the repository is open to commits.
But that will be a 1.3.6, right?
Well, first we'll need a release manager. Any volunteers? If so, set up a plan on the wiki and have at it. We don't have to wait on 1.3.5, a new build could be tagged at any time.
It's easy for feature creep to enter into the picture -- so my unclear point (hehe) was that if I deliver some
moderate changes, it
makes getting a production version out that more complex. I'd like to
work on a
production branch though before delivering.
Some people have had 1.3 "in production" for over a year. In fact, since we "eat our own dog food", we expect committers and other developers to put a milestone in production first, so that we can find problems with edge cases. At this point, 1.3.5 is what it is. If it makes GA, it makes GA. The tag is set, the die is cast. If someone wants to start a new line of development, it's not hard to create a branch in the sandbox, and then merge it back into the trunk later. -Ted. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
