ok I will try to push it on the list, gathering the spare informations we have all over. this will be a draft, anyone of us can push some ideas of features.
On 9/25/07, Ersin Er <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We need a Release Schedule/Roadmap for 2.0 right now. > > > On 9/25/07, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I didn't say that we should not experiment in branch, but that we > > should not merge the branch in 2.0, otherwise we will have too many > > configuration change. > > > > When 2.0 will be out, we may then merge the branch with trunk, or > > discard the branch. > > > > Branching to experiment this new configuration is like if we > > anticipate the 2.5 trunk, and I have nothing againt that. > > > > On 9/25/07, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On 9/25/07, Emmanuel Lecharny < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > For those reasons, I would say : keep 2.0 conf as is, and do > > > > experimentations in a branch. > > > > > > So we're not going to be too free to experiment from now on in 1.5 > branch? > > > This sort of > > > breaks with our general policy on branches yet it's appealing in many > other > > > ways. It's > > > just a matter of trade offs. It's more important in this case for us to > > > just make a decision. > > > > > > Either option is fine with me since both choices take relatively the > same > > > time and energy. > > > I started this thread to see what people are thinking about it and it > sounds > > > as though there > > > is a split. Perhaps we just need a vote and go with it. > > > > > > Alex > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Cordialement, > > Emmanuel Lécharny > > www.iktek.com > > > > > > -- > > Ersin Er > http://www.ersin-er.name -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com
