On Feb 19, 2010, at 3:14 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Doug Cutting <[email protected]>
wrote:
Eli Collins wrote:
My concern is more about when the next branch from trunk will be
made.
Does there need to be a dependency?
No. I just wanted to note that, from my point of view, releasing
from the
existing 0.21 branch is not sufficient, that, regardless, we still
need to
release from trunk soon, and we need a schedule going forward for
when
future branches from trunk will be made.
Agreed. Releasing a 21 won't settle the release process question or
tell us when the first major release is. Maybe we could get 21 behind
us and have a separate discussion covering those.
Could the vote on whether 22 is backwards compatible with 20 be
independent of what we call 1.0?
We minimally need to declare whether releases are major or minor.
I was assuming 21 would be another minor release, didn't hear
otherwise when it was branched. I didn't interpret the compatibility
vote as a suggestion that we should retroactively consider 20 to be
the first major release, but rather a suggestion for voting that we
don't remove APIs in 22 that were deprecated in 20.
Agreed.
Rather than renaming versions, lets vote on the compatibility rules
for 22: 22 is API compatible with 20.
Owen, please
correct me if I'm wrong.
Thanks,
Eli
