> From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > From: "Peter Royal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > On Thursday 06 June 2002 03:19 pm, Vadim Gritsenko wrote: > > > > > your votes: > > > > > > > > > > Shall we remove them from 2.0.3? > > > > > > > > -1, since that is still a point-release from the original 2.0 > > > > > > IIRC, the deprecation -> removal cycle was defined on this list as > > > "deprecate, wait 3-4-5-6 month, remove", but was not tied to the version > > > numbering. > > > > > > Am I wrong? > > > > No, you're right. > > > > My logic was thus: > > > > 2.0.2 -> 2.0.3 > > should be a relatively painless upgrade, mainly bugfixes, few new > > features. > > > > 2.0.x -> 2.1 > > will require some effort to adapt to new changes. > > > > Why not lump in with the 2.1 changes and remove one less (potential) > > hurdle > > in a 2.0.x -> 2.0.3 upgrade. > > > > I guess I'm more -0. The change won't impact me, but why not wait for 2.1 > > to impact those that will be. > > 2.0.3 means third bugfix release of 2.0.
Ahem... Scroll through 2.0 -> 2.0.1 changes... Or 2.0.1 -> 2.0.2... I don't feel that this could be called *bug fix* release :) > The more we touch it, the more it can gain the problems of 2.1 along with > the fixes. > > BTW, when are we releasing? ASAP if we will have 2.0.4. Later if not - there are some issues to address... Vadim > -- > Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - verba volant, scripta manent - > (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) > --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
