I'm not sure that is necessary. I think we can establish consensus without doing so, but if you like, call a vote.
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Ted <[email protected]> wrote: > Do we need to start another thread voting for options 1 and 2 ? > > We should make a decision soon so that the next 0.94 release can be made. > > Cheers > > On Mar 3, 2013, at 5:50 AM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Concur. +1 on option #1 and #2, with #1 preferred, -1 on #3. > > > > On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 10:10 AM, lars hofhansl <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> So it seems that until we have a stable 0.96 (maybe 0.96.1 or 0.96.2) we > >> have three options: > >> 1. Backport new features to 0.94 as we see fit as long as we do not > >> destabilize 0.94. > >> 2. Declare a certain point release (0.94.6 looks like a good candidate) > as > >> a "long term", create an 0.94.6 branch (in addition to the usual 0.94.6 > >> tag) and than create 0.94.6.x fix only releases. I would volunteer to > >> maintain a 0.94.6 branch in addition to the 0.94 branch. > >> 3. Categorically do not backport new features into 0.94 and defer to > 0.95. > >> > >> I'd be +1 on option #1 and #2, and -1 on option #3. > >> > >> -- Lars > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > > > - Andy > > > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > > (via Tom White) > -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
