"William A. Rowe, Jr." wrote: > What's the penalty for stable/development trees? Users don't have > the development code (at least not many) for some time, until the > development tree becomes GA quality. But that's how it should be, > and that's the only way we will ever find 1.3 adopters moving to 2.x. > Anyone solid code contributions that don't break the API can always > be merged back to the GA maintenance tree. We've done that for > two years from 2.0 to 1.3, and it's worked.
+1 on the concept of a stable 2.x release, where x > 0. Bill S. has good points about the PR aspects of release numbers. I'm sort of leaning toward x being even since that fits in with what many folks are used to. I wouldn't mind being a stable release maintainer. It would be very satisfying to help drive up user acceptance of 2.x, plus I'm a stodgy old man of course. I'll want to play in the itch scratching tree occasionally too. Greg
