> On Oct 25, 2017, at 7:48 AM, Eric Covener <[email protected]> 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 >> developers >> 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. > > +1
Same here. +1!
