The general understanding is that we should not have been in this condition. But since we are, and as per Lars' comments, we desperately need some of the features.
Let's move the discussions to individual backporting jiras. We can gauge reward / risk on a case by case basis (which we have been doing a decent job so far) Enis On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:10 PM, 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 want us to get to #3. Lets get to 1.0.0 sooner rather than later so we > have more numbers to play with (0.96 == 1.0.0?) > > Regards #1, +1, but how to verify we do not destabilize 0.94? > > -1 on #2. Just confuses. > > As has been said already, we'd probably not be having this conversation nor > feeling the need to backport features if 0.96 was out. > > St.Ack >
