I remember the thread, but it seems I need to reread the thread - honestly the comment did take me by surprise, I think we may have used a few terms that were left open to interpretation. On Jun 15, 2016 5:06 PM, "Joe Skora" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I agree with Tony on this. > > The point of release branching, etc. is to make it possible to maintain an > older version while building the newer version. Yes, it is a nuisance, but > not nearly as much as a new version is for users if it is has significant > changes and/or bugs. Except in cases where there is a captive user base, > failure to maintain the prior version while perfecting the latest and > greatest can be a fatal decision. > > The 0.x version does have shortcomings, but with the amount of the back-end > and front-end that has completely redesigned, I am concerned that a > stagnant 0.x will result is a loss of users. The transition from 0.x to > 1.x will not be easy for most users. In many ways, transitioning to 1.x > will be like implementing a whole new system which would cause most > organizations I've worked to revisit their system choice to see what other > solutions might exist for their use cases. > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 7:11 PM, Andre <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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? > > > > > >
