At 06:43 PM 10/16/2002, Greg Marr wrote: >On Wed, 16 Oct 2002 19:24:22 -0400 > Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>I'm +1 for creating 2.1 and 2.2 trees as proposed by Bill. > >My one thought about this proposal is that it is unclear whether or not this is >attempting to emulate the Perl versioning scheme. If so, then it's backwards, since >Perl uses even numbers for releases and odd numbers for development, but Bill >proposed that 2.1 be the "stable" branch, and "2.2" become the "development" branch.
I thought about that making Coffee this morning. But we are as correct as anything... the 'development' precedes incorporating the code into the 'stable' branch. So at any given time, there will be more 'progress' on the unstable tree. The difference, we call 2.1 releases Stable-GA, as opposed to Dev-GA. Bill
