At 1:05 PM -0500 10/13/02, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > >Then I want to clarify ... you both object to the statement that developers >within HTTP should be free to work on what they want. Obviously, you are >both stating that we should not introduce 2.1 anytime real soon now. >
In a nutshell, here are my thoughts: Creating a 2.1 branch will sacrifice 2.0. I really feel that if 2.1 is started, 2.0 will basically stay the exact same way it is right now. And although 2.0 *is* production ready, there is still a lot more that could be done with it, to make it better. Consider what happened with 2.0 and 1.3: When 2.0 started "in earnest" development on 1.3 was frowned upon. "No new features" and the like. 2.0 was the "cool project" to work on, and 1.3 was considered "old stuff". This only succeeded because (1) 1.3 was very, very robust. It was solid and had been worked on and tuned enough that it could be somewhat "left alone" and (2) that some of us decided to make sure that 1.3 was still a living a breathing project, despite some developer inklings that "you should really be working on 2.0." 2.0 is not, IMO, at a stage where a 2.1 branch is warranted. There's still a lot that can, and should be done in 2.0. If it means an API change, well, if the need is strong enough, then that's that. My concern about the API was a growing tendency towards being able to justify an API change for anything. People *want* to use 2.0: let's make it easy for them. -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
