> On Dec 24, 2016, at 8:54 AM, Eric Covener <cove...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 3:28 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> > wrote: >> Next step is to actually end enhancements alltogether >> against 2.4 (we've done that some time ago, security >> issues notwithstanding, on 2.2), and push all of the >> enhancement effort towards 3.0 (2.5-dev). Of course, >> we should continue to pick up bug fixes and help those >> still on 2.4 have a good day. >> >> Let those users looking for cool new things pick up >> the 3.0 release. > > What's the carrot for users/developers in a 2.6/3.0? I'm not sure > they'd come along for this ride. To play devils advocate, it seems > like many of the breaking changes could be imposed by having > deprecated fields/accessors (maybe moving to more of the latter) and > preferred alternatives (to avoid major MMN bumps). >
Yeah, that is kind of alluded to in my thoughts. For 3.0 to *really* be a major carrot, we are talking (IMO), a major refactoring. A super streamlining of filters, etc. I used to think making use of Serf would be it, but instead I'm thinking libmill/libdill would be better (plus, to be honest, I still can't figure out all the ins and outs of Serf and there's no documentation at all)... In other words, to ensure that people come along for the ride, the ride has to be revolutionary, at least at some level. And that, imo, takes time to architecture, design, implement and test. If we say "no new stuff for 2.4 until then" then, as I have stated, we have given all our current users a great reason and rationale for leaving, and they will. I'm not saying we don't do one so we can do the other; I'm saying we do both, at the same time, in parallel. I still don't understand why that concept is such an anathema to some people. > Anyone with ideas about what they'd want in a new release is > encouraged to add them to the trunk STATUS file, even if they are just > wishlist items -- it's not a commitment. Added some of mine already :)
