* Paul Querna wrote: > Based on the results from the '[PROPOSAL] Branch 2.1.x on May 13', > there are enough positive votes create the 2.1.x branch on this Friday: > > +1: justin, Brad, Sander, (me) > -1: wrowe > +1, but latter discussed problems: Jim > > Instead of calling it branches/2.1.x, on IRC wrowe suggested going > straight to branches/2.2.x, and on further thought I agree. > > There is little point is calling it 2.1.x, if its only purpose is to > become 2.2.x. If we really want to move forward towards GA, we should > just start on 2.2.x releases, and use the standard -alpha, and -beta > names on the tarbals, until one is good enough for GA. I doubt that the > first alpha will be perfect, but the version numbers are cheap. > > My intention is to roll 2.2.0-alpha on Friday or early Saturday, after > copying trunk to branches/2.2.x. This is different from the original > details of the '[PROPOSAL] Branch 2.1.x on May 13' thread, but the > result is the same. > > Votes on going straight to 2.2.0-alpha?
-0.5 on calling it 2.2.x. I'm seeing it like this: Once forked off, 2.1.x would be *stabilizing* branch, that finally leads to a 2.2.x branch, when we feel, it's stable (svn mv 2.1.x 2.2.x?). From the 2.1.x branch we tag alpha and beta releases; from *stable* 2.2.x rc and stable release. I think that's exactly the point of the odd/even system - 2.2.0 being a GA version. I see (now :-) that we should have already branched 2.1.x the first time we released a 2.1 version. nd -- Gib' mal folgendes in die Kommandozeile ein (und einen Moment warten): net send localhost "Buuuh!" Na, erschreckt? -- Markus Becker in mpdsh
