Tony, I second Joe's comments as well.
Since the early discussions about the branching model I have been under the total impression that once 1.0 is released, 0.x would become support only and updates restricted to critical issues (security & data-loss break-fixes). This is not to say that a NPE or a 100% CPU issue shouldn't be backported, but I would imagine the effort to port to 0.x should be driven by the contributor rather than the merger (as it is being done atm). On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: > According to the discussion we had about the management of the release > lines there would only be incremental releases when something was critical > enough (security or data loss). And, if someone really wanted needed a > minor release they could initiate and do that as well. But as far as > continued feature development and focus it would shift to 1.0. > > So emphasis moves to new major line but those staying on the old major can > still have options as well. > On Jun 14, 2016 5:31 PM, "Tony Kurc" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Joe, for some reason, my mental image was that I expected we'd keep > releasing new 0.x minor releases for a while along with 1.x. > > Is that everyone else's expectations? >
