> Next-major is the only real roadmap we currently have: it has proposal,
> status update and discussions. And also a REAL VOTE!
> Next-Major currently is in svn trunk folder. This is what we VOTED.
> I made a proposal, we voted, we had all +1s to that vote. I'm just
> following that release plan. I really don't understand what's wrong
> with this. When I'll have understood this maybe I'll come back.
I'm sorry that you're taking this badly, and I could see this coming a couple
of weeks ago when other people started questioning the release labels. And, as
a reminder, I started this thread to talk about versions in JIRA, specifically
removing trunk from the version list, not to talk about about what ends up or
not in next-major. But let try to explain what I see happening.
As best I can surmise, Stefano, what's wrong is that only you and I (and
perhaps Norman) took the next-major plan seriously in all of its details (which
is why I did not vote in favor of it). Everyone else took it as just a general
roadmap, but didn't take seriously the timeframe or consider anything cast in
stone.
>From what I can see, the agreement that actually exists is that when everyone
>is comfortable, we branch trunk to a release branch and start work to stablize
>that branch. Hey, *I* agree with that, too! :-) What I didn't agree with
>were some of the details, especially the timeframes, and it seems that other
>folks ignored that and voted for the outline.
And I have no problem with the general idea. We had laid out something similar
in the past. It makes sense. I just didn't agree with some of the details and
certainly not even remotely with the proposed timeframes when combined with the
rest of it. There are things in trunk that have gotten way ahead of anyone's
comfort point, and yet there is a lot of GOOD stuff in trunk, too, with high
value.
Here is a bit of irony for you, since you seem to think that I'm fixated on
next-minor and against next-major. Most of the code I want to do belongs in
next-major. And I don't want to see us maintain the v2.3 branch once we can
stablize next-major. When I point out how much code has changed, and suggest
that we have to review each change from v2.3 to what becomes next-major, you
think that I'm trying to be an obstruction. But what I'm really trying to do
is have us do the risk assessment for the code, so that we can more confidently
move forward with it.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
