> I guess you are right. It is mostly a case of semantics. What exactly > do we mean by 2.1? The official description of a minor release does not > really fit with our plans (which I still agree with). I do not think a > 3.0 release is quite appropriate either though. Is there a middle > ground? 2.55 perhaps:)
Mike, My initial idea was we would bend the release guidelines somewhat for 2.1 release. 2.1 would be in essence '2.0 done more or less right'. We would have to do some selective and limited API changes but would retain the overall conceptual compatibility. Nothing truly radical and ground breaking. Since we can't seem to be able to take such approach, then I would simply call it the end of the story for the 2.x branch. Oleg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
