On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 10:05 AM, <louis at lagendijk.xs4all.nl> wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 4:56 AM, Alessandro Zummo >> <azummo-lists at towertech.it> wrote: >>> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 08:45:47 -0400 >>> "m. allan noah" <kitno455 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> 're-open the discussion' != 'remove the #if 0' >> >> frankly, it is bad when we don't do frequent releases, and so we tell >> users of new equipment that they have to build from git repo, but the >> git repo uses a different API. >> >> so- lets release current tree as 1.0.21 in one month. At the same >> time, we finalize the 2.0 spec. If we keep it small, we can do a 2.0 >> release around Jan 1. I'm pretty busy, but if i can get some help we >> can swing it. >> > +1, the changes we have seen since the last release warrant another 1.x > release without API changes > >> i am sure sane 1.0.21 and sane 2.0.0 will have to live concurrently >> for a little while, so we will have to keep that in mind. >> >> comments? >> > Do we have agreement on what changes we need to make to the API for 2.x?
no > How big will be the impact on the clients? unknown, but hopefully small. > Is this really big enough to > require a parallel support? I would prefer not to, but there are lots of private and custom front-ends out there, which might take some time to change. >?I would see a 1.0.21 as a bugfix release. Because we are always adding new scanners, we never make 'just' at bugfix release. > Would you want to add new scanners to the 1.0.x relase after 1.0.21? What > will be the maintenance policy? Undecided. allan -- "The truth is an offense, but not a sin"
