> Let's move the discussions to individual backporting jiras. +1
On Tuesday, March 5, 2013, Enis Söztutar wrote: > 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] <javascript:;>> > wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:10 PM, lars hofhansl > > <[email protected]<javascript:;>> > 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 > > > -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
