Antoni Gallardo wrote: > > Ralph Goers dijo: > > It is highly unlikely that the project I am working on will > use 2.2 as > > we have to be in production early next year and a > significant amount > > of work has already been done. > > > > I am very much in favor of continuing to add new features > to 2.1 (such > > as the patch I just submitted), especially when they are completely > > binary compatible. I believe 2.1 has a long life ahead of it. > > > > Frankly, I'd prefer that the current 2.2 become 3.0 and the > > incompatible changes go into a new 2.2. It is my > impression that what > > is now in 2.2 is going to end up being quite different from 2.1 and > > that it should not just be a point release. This would allow me to > > migrate to stay on 2.1 and maintain binary compatibility, > move to 2.2 > > at the risk of minor incompatibilities, or move up to 3.0 > where major > > differences happen. I realize there is a risk with this, as nobody > > really likes to maintain two releases at one time, so 2.1 > is likely to stagnate. > > Same here. A question (just trying to understand): that means > we can also drop the support for old avalon components in > 3.0. Is this correct? > We *could* do this, but I hope we will not :) Given the discussions about blocks here and the recent discussions over at Avalon I could imagine that we don't have to drop the support. But I think, we should simply try to support them and if it's not possible, well for a 3.0 we could drop it.
Carsten
