I like this, but this has some implications on support. If this is done "just like Linux" there will continue to be maintenance releases of 2.1 while 2.3 is underway. When 2.4 is released there will be maintenance releases of it while 2.5 is being developed. This seems to be a little different than how things are currently done. There will also need to be decisions about whether enhancements should be allowed in a stable release or just fixes.
I would recommend that whatever policy is decided upon be documented on the web site along with the "support contract" you drew up a few weeks ago. Ralph -----Original Message----- From: Carsten Ziegeler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 2:14 PM To: Cocoon-Dev Subject: Cocoon after 2.1.5 Considering all our version discussions, we want the next Cocoon version to be a minor version change, so this will be 2.2. We will put new features into it that were planned for 2.2 anyway, perhaps except blocks. Pier suggested that we follow the Linux versioning, so the version numbers .0, .2, etc. mark stable versions whereas .1,.3 etc. mark developer versions. If we want to follow this, we should imho skip 2.2, use 2.3 to indicate a developer version and 2.4 will then be the final and stable version. WDYT? Carsten Carsten Ziegeler Open Source Group, S&N AG http://www.osoco.net/weblogs/rael/
