Yeah, I just arrived at the same conclusion. I vote for 1.1.1 as well.
On 12/5/07, Matthieu Riou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Actually I was reviewing the list of changes and there's nothing really > major. A long list of small fixes, performance and usability improvements > but nothing earth-shattering. It still provides a lot of value for users > are > there are a few annoying things in there but given that we're holding up > the > major features for a little more, what about calling it a 1.1.1 instead of > 1.2? I think it captures the minor nature of the release a bit better and > leaves 1.2 for the bells and whistles. > > Matthieu > > On Dec 5, 2007 8:14 AM, Tammo van Lessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Matthieu Riou wrote: > > > On Dec 5, 2007 7:09 AM, Tammo van Lessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> I see, ok. Then I got it wrong in your last mail. Sorry. E4X assigns > > and > > >> extension activities are not (yet) back ported to the 1.1 branch. It > > >> would be okay for me to put into the next release train but I think > > it's > > >> not that hard to port it back to 1.2. What do you guys think? > > >> (especially regarding the change in the OAssign and some other > OClasses > > >> - users would need to compile their processes again) > > >> > > > > > > Yeah, I'd love to get these features out ASAP but they also break > > backward > > > compatibility of the compiled process and for a lot of people with > > running > > > instances that's a problem. I think we should have a fairly > > > conservative 1.2and then introduce all these changes in > > > 2.0 once we'll have a way to support compiled processes migration. > > Hopefully > > > that should come quickly, I thinks this release has already been far > too > > > long to come. I don't feel like delaying much more 1.2 as we have a > lot > > of > > > fixes in the 1.1 branch that are pretty useful. Sounds good? > > Yep, sounds good. > > > > Cheers, > > Tammo > > >
