On May 31, 2005, at 7:21 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 11:50:43AM -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Can we agree that we need to somehow construct the stable, unstable
and sandbox codebases?
I don't think we have agreed on what is stable and what is unstable.
Fair enough - but can we agree that we need the *distinction* and
then decide what goes *in*?
We were having a discussion on the fact that it is now impossible
to offer a stable upgrade/patch path for applications. That thread
was killed with "PLEASE CAN WE PUT IT ON HOLD UNTIL AFTER
CERTIFICATION."
Now Jeremy has proposed that we ignore that discussion and begin
cementing what we currently have as stable. How is that at all fair?
I think that what Jeremy has proposed actually fixes that, doesn't it?
We can have a stable area that we focus on going for cert and then
version 1.0, and a unstable area where innovation and change (like
the serialization experimentation) can happen - then things that work
can be brought to stable, w/o affecting the work for cert and 1.0
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
