On 11/6/2017 12:44 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> On Nov 6, 2017, at 12:18 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>>
>> Reiterating again, that we disagree about who our preferred
>> approaches are serving and they are disingenuous toward.
>> Again, a value judgement.
>>
> Assuming we go ahead and tag 2.5.0, what is your intention
> related to 2.4.x? My understanding is that your desire is to
> place it under "maintenance mode", that is, no functional
> backports to 2.4.x.
>
> Is this correct?
>
> To be honest, I don't care at all what happens re: trunk and
> the 2.5.0 tag, etc as long as it does NOT restrict what we
> can do for 2.4.x. My fear is that one goal behind tagging 2.5.x
> is hamstringing 2.4.x.
>
> So, for the record, just so we are all clear, what is your desire/goal
> in all this as far as 2.4.x is related?

To echo also what Bill has said, I don't intend 2.4 to die off because
we're rolling an alpha for 2.5.0. Far from it. For any of the changes
I've submitted over the years, I tried to maintain 2.2 parity with
things backported to 2.4 as much as possible. It's not *easy* managing
two backport proposals in two different STATUS files, but it's certainly
not undoable.

I definitely want to help people interested in testing trunk get that
version in their hands sooner, so if alphas are the way to do that, I'm
all for it 

I'll tag and roll tomorrow evening (roughly 24 hours from the time I
sent this message) as a first whack at the process. This first run will
be the first full execution of the script to do the tagging and prepping
for next version. After that I'll move on to other parts of the release
process (seems like release.sh is rather complete) and, of course,
documentation updates as needed.

P.S.
Resending to dev list

-- 
Daniel Ruggeri

Reply via email to