As I understand it, 2.0.x is not a "patch release". It's part of the 2.0.x minor release series. By our reckoning, 2.0.10.1 would be a "patch" release, and in that case, I would agree.
AFAIK, we have always agreed that minor releases are *not* feature-locked. If we start feature-locking minor-releases, IMHO, we will *never* get a timely GA vote on a minor release, because everyone will say "wait, wait, one more thing". (Been there, did that, burned the T-shirt!) We do have annotations in the 2.0.x series, but we are missing ActionName/ActionNames annotations. We would simply be finishing what we already started. No one is suggesting that we change any existing behavior, but that we simply add in the ActionName.ActionNames annotations in the same way that we have ResultName and ResultNames annotations. -Ted. On 9/20/07, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd prefer we give this more thought and keep it in the 2.1.x branch. > I view patch releases as those that only provide bug fixes or minor > stability features. Something like annotations, which will be used in > client code, is really a public API feature and should be reserved for > minor, at the least, feature releases. > > Don > > On 9/18/07, Ted Husted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I was just wondering if it would make any sense to at least add > > SmartURL-type ActionName and ActionNames annotations to the 2.0.x > > core, so as to finish what we started with the validation and result > > annotations. We probably don't need to get into exception and > > interceptor annotations for 2.0, but ActionNames would be nice. > > > > -Ted. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
