On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:23 PM, lars hofhansl <[email protected]> wrote: > I think a major consideration is that it is possible to do a rolling upgrade > from 0.92 to 0.94 and the client/server protocol is unchanged > (or at least 100% compatible) between all versions of 0.92 and 0.94.
Indeed. > 0.96 will require a more invasive upgrade, and is overall a riskier release. Hopefully it won't prevent people from upgrading. > So how about for 0.94: (1) bug fixes, (2) non invasive performance > improvements, in addition to (3) non invasive, small new features if some > committer/party shows interest? That seems to be what we've already been doing, +1 from me. > There is an easy (without downtime) upgrade path from 0.92 to 0.94, so we > *could* be less diligent about backporting to 0.92. Again I'm +1, we just went through that and not taking downtime was magic. J-D
