I would like to start a discussion on 2.5.0 and give
some insights on my thoughts related to it.

First and foremost: there is cool stuff in 2.5.0
that I really, REALLY wish were in a releasable, usable
artifact. Up to now, we've been doing these as backports
to the 2.4.x tree with, imo at least, good success.

So I think the main questions regarding 2.5.0 is a list
of items/issues that simply *cannot* be backported, due
to API/ABI concerns. And then gauge the "value" of
the items on that list.

Another would be to look at some of the items currently
"on hold" for backporting, due to outstanding questions,
tech issues, more needed work/QA, etc... IMO, if these
backports lack "support" for 2.4.x, then I wonder how
"reliable" they are (or how tested they are) in the 2.5.o
tree. And if the answer is "we pull them out of 2.5.0"
then the question after that is what really *are* the
diffs between 2.5.0 and 2.4.x... If, however, the
answer is "tagging 2.5.0 will encourage us to address
those issues" then my question is "Why aren't we doing
that now... for 2.4.x".

And finally: 2.4.x is now, finally, being the default
version in distros, being the go-to version that people
are using, etc... I would like us to encourage that
momentum.

Reply via email to