-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Daniel Quinlan writes: > > Do we want to fix this for 3.0.3, or just leaving it for 3.1? > > I'm okay with backporting, but I think we're nearing the point at which > we buckle down on 3.1 and focus on it. The tree is remarkably stable > right now and there are a number of significant improvements, so I'm > starting to think about actually sticking to the aggressive schedule > that was proposed a few months ago. :-) +1. I think we should only do a 3.0.3 if something serious (security, data loss, etc.) comes up. - --j. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFB4v/QMJF5cimLx9ARAgkkAJ0SuiBX6eOw2mWHKXZw6K3FR603ugCdE+kW ekq0zXOQGaGEGuYaMZo7adk= =YWNa -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
