Martin Poeschl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Colin Chalmers wrote: > > >Martin, > > > >Sounds simple enough. > > > >What should be done with enhancements, should it be done in Turbine or > >Fulcrum, both? And is there anything that should be taken into account to > >ensure we move closer to Avalon? > > > i'm not sure about the future of turbine-3 and fulcrum as > summit/plexus is discussed as an alternative ...
I'd definitely like to see the changes go into both 2.x and Fulcrum. Please ping me when ever making changes which should be forward-ported and I will do so. Thanks to John McNally, Fulcrum is already mostly Avalon-ized. > switching form turbine 2.1 to 2.2 causes tons of code changes .. so i > would prefere the 2.3 release to cause less pain A quick 2.3 with minimal addition of functionality and some bug fixes is Goodness. > as long as it is not deiced if we will use turbine-3/fulcrum or > summit/plexus for future releases i prefere to keep the services in > turbine-2 and improve them there It doesn't make sense to use either of the separate services frameworks in the 2.x series -- such a big change is deserving of a major point release bump. > >I also think you mentioned a preference for releasing more often, what would > >be the time frame for 2.3? 3 months? > > > maybe ;-) If it's just a minimal set of changes, there's nothing stopping a fast release cycle. Martin, would you mind updating the todo.xml with your suggested changes (or just do it as a text doc if it's eaiser)? -- Daniel Rall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
