> On Oct 25, 2017, at 7:48 AM, Eric Covener <cove...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The guidelines are fine with me and seem to make sense to get to an API
>> stable next GA. It is good to have a list of 'To Do's' that needs to be done
>> before next GA. That helps people looking for interesting and useful work to
>> spend their time :-).
>> Once it is decided that the API is stable I guess we need
>> to branch in order to avoid restraining further progress on trunk by
>> that want to change the API further in an incompatible way. This could still
>> be a '2.5.x' branch
>> that morphs into a 2.6.x or 3.0.x branch later.
>> My personal itch and use of my regrettably very limited amount of time these
>> days is
>> on the current 2.4 and getting at least some of the features back into it
>> (a little bit like Jim's approach). This has to do with my dayjob where it
>> is much easier
>> to upgrade to 2.4.next than to a new GA version.
>> But I see merit in getting more track on moving forward with current trunk
>> to something
>> releasable. So go for the alpha tags and see if you get sufficient votes for
>> it and what
>> the feedback of the broader community is. If it is valuable: Great. If not
>> or if it doesn't lift off no harm is done IMHO. Then the alpha release will
>> just stop
>> due to lack of interest in the community.
Same here. +1!