On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 05:34:41AM -0500, Sebastien Goasguen wrote: > > On Feb 28, 2013, at 1:21 PM, Joe Brockmeier <j...@zonker.net> wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2013, at 03:00 PM, Chip Childers wrote: > >> I stated my opinion on this previously [1], but for the record again: > >> > >> I would suggest that we only do bug-fix releases for: > >> > >> - The latest feature release of our active major version number (i.e.: > >> 4.x) > > To make sure I get this right: > > So Once we release 4.2 we will only bug fix 4.1 and stop bug fixing 4.0 ?
That's what I'm proposing, yes. > > >> - The latest feature release of our last major version number (doesn't > >> exist today, but will be 4.x when / if we bump to 5.0) > > Once we jump to 5.X we will bug fix the latest 4.x release (if it's 4.2, we > will stop bug fixing 4.1) ? > That's also what I'm proposing, yup. > The really crucial part for me is to make sure we have a really solid/tested > upgrade path. We cannot leave anyone out in the cold of a "unsupported" > release. > Indeed. Upgrades remain critical to this project. We need to constantly ensure that we have upgrade paths available from any version to the latest version. > >> > >> Just my opinion though. Others? > >> > >> [1] http://markmail.org/message/quzgjne44prl5m2c > > > > Given the current levels of participation on dot-releases, I think this > > is the most realistic approach that's good for the community. > > > > +1 > > > > Best, > > > > jzb > > -- > > Joe Brockmeier > > j...@zonker.net > > Twitter: @jzb > > http://www.dissociatedpress.net/ > >
