Let me make myself clear from my original message, since I think there is confusion as to what I was asking:
When I referred to 1.1, I placed into parenthesis, "the new trunk version that is". I only have intentions of it going into *some* trunk, assuming it will be the newly branded trunk based on 1.1. I did not want to build this off of 1.2-dead for obvious reasons. I do *not* at all mean that this should go in the 1.1 release, and I would -1 that myself...I just want it in the new trunk when its cut. Jeff Dain Sundstrom wrote: > +1 to merge it to the new trunk. > > -0.5 to merge it into 1.1... I don't see any ready to move it into 1.1. > There are no users or implementations yet. If someone writes one for > 1.1, they can ship a plugin containing the session apis. > > -dain > > On May 22, 2006, at 10:13 AM, David Jencks wrote: > >> I'm fine with it going into trunk after 1.1 is branched. I'm not at >> all fine with it going into 1.1 and getting released in 1.1: I don't >> think we should release an api that has not been proved to work well. >> >> thanks >> david jencks >> >> On May 22, 2006, at 9:54 AM, Jeff Genender wrote: >> >>> We have an initial swipe at some clustering to put into the sandbox, but >>> will have a need for the session api ;-) >>> >>> Anyone have issue with putting the session API in 1.1 (the new trunk >>> version that is)? (Need 3 +1s) >>> >>> Jeff
