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 >
