I have no problem with that, but remember that it will create an ABI break for any third-party plugin developer.
As long as we are comfortable doing that, or create the backward-compatibility we discussed, then this plan is fine by me. On Oct 8, 2010, at 3:13 PM, Jeff Squyres wrote: > As we discussed on the call last week, since there is already a bit of a > divergence between the trunk and the v1.5 branch, how's this for a wild idea: > > What if we re-sync the entire trunk to the v1.5 branch, stabilize that, > and call it v1.5.1? > > The assumption here is that it will be [far] easier to just re-sync the trunk > to the v1.5 branch than to try to bring over stuff in a piecemeal fashion. > > There's a *bunch* of new stuff on the trunk that is not on the v1.5 branch -- > there's more than enough "meat" to call it a new release. > > *** Put differently: is there anything on the trunk that is *not* ready to go > to the v1.5 series? > > -- > Jeff Squyres > jsquy...@cisco.com > For corporate legal information go to: > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/ > > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > de...@open-mpi.org > http://www.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/devel
