Upayavira wrote:
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Upayavira wrote:
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
Exactly - and we should try to make sense out of our version numbers especially wrt compatibility.As is leaving things alone so you don't take the risk of breaking things :-)
If 2.1 will work without this "feature" => please remove it. Cleaning the
house is good. ;-)
I think we should be keeping 2.1.X as stable as possible, and be tidying trunk.
+1
We therefore need to be thinking about how to get trunk released within a reasonable time (6 months?), and therefore be prepared to delay some features until 2.3 if their development is going to take too long.
+1 also. I think the include feature in xconf will make the pressure to release 2.2 higher ;-)
After all, 2.1.X is a _maintenance_ branch, but that doesn't seem too much like how we're using it - we're adding stuff to it that should go in 2.2, only because we don't know when 2.2 will be out, we're not happy to just have it there.
Good analysis. The problem is that trunk has not (or had not before include) enough distinguishing features to make it really appealing compared to 2.1. And it therefore doesn't urge us to release it, leading new features to be added to 2.1 also as we need them on production systems. Chicken and egg...
So raising the demand for 2.2 may simply be a matter for us developpers to add new features only on 2.2 and use it more on realworld projects. That will urge us to officially release it before our projects go into production.
Sylvain
-- Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com { XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }
