On Dec 15, 2007 10:50 AM, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not ok with dropping binary compatibility for 1.4.1. Why call it > 1.4.1if it is in fact > 1.5 or 2.0? > I'd rather implement a milestone schedule for 1.4, like the Eclipse project > does: > > 1.4-M1 – just generics/left overs from 2.0, bug fixes from 1.3 > 1.4-M2 – additional 1.5 features (mount annotations? varargs?), other > stuff, bug fixes from 1.3 > 1.4-M3 – other stuff, bug fixes from 1.3 > 1.4-RC1 – bug fixes... > 1.4-RC2 – bug fixes... > 1.4-RC3 – bug fixes... > 1.4 – final
That's fine too. The main point I'm trying to make is that we should hold back on implementing new API break functionality until we lived up to our promise of delivering the last 2.0 ports. But we should it in such a way that we don't hold back any new development for the next year either. Eelco
