On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Andrea Faulds <a...@ajf.me> wrote: > > Hey Matteo, > > > On 16 Dec 2014, at 11:29, Matteo Beccati <p...@beccati.com> wrote: > > > > This is what I meant when I previously mentioned seeing RFCs targeting > 5.7. I understand what you say and I do wholeheartedly agree with you. > > > > However if one would have to strictly follow what has been voted, such > features should be backported to whatever becomes 5.7, if any. Perhaps the > 5.7 RFC could explicitly states what is (not) going to happen wrt those > RFCs. > > I think it’s pretty clear in stating 5.7 will have no new features. > > I don't think that we have a consensus on that yet, I would put that up for voting, but I do agree that there shouldn't be any major features like what we used to have in a minor version(and I can understand the reasoning from Zeev to even push the small features to 7.0 instead so people have more reason to upgrade).
-- Ferenc Kovács @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
