On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Zarel <zare...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Per Inge Mathisen > <per.mathi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Zarel <zare...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Yeah, let's just rename 2.4 to 3.0 alpha 1. >> >> Which part of the arguments against this that were previously >> presented did you not agree with? > > Alphas don't need to be feature-complete, so feature-completeness > isn't an issue.
Ah, but you see, we're not just proposing making a new snapshot of trunk and giving it a fancy name (what would really be the point of that) - we're proposing branching trunk so that we can proceed to make a release from it without all the neat things we've talked about for 3.0. > And having three supported branches is kind of weird. I really liked > only having two... That will always be the case when you are preparing for a new release. You have trunk (1), old stable (2), then the new to-be-stable-but-not-quite-yet branch (3). Once the third branch is stable and released, the second branch dies off and you are back to two supported branches. That is the way these things usually work ;-) - Per _______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
