On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 07:46:24PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote: > On 08/29/05 Brian Harring wrote: > > That and the fact the 2.1 state should be decided, if we're going to > > have (effectively) two branches of development going at once, vs > > developmental line and maintenance branch. > > Well, basically I wanted to deploy elog and Jason mentioned some other > changes as well, and while talking about it we couldn't find much in > head that we didn't want out. Unfortunately you weren't around at that > time. Also I think we could use 2.1 to add all the hacks we need for > transitioning (like the EAPI and Manifest stuff).
I'd rather tag the hacks into stable release, as what the EAPI patch is intended to do. Reasoning is pretty straightforward; I trust stable code to hold less user visible bugs now, then what 2.1 would hold- stable has been shoved through the ringer; 2.1 hasn't been shoved through a comparable ringer. Further, if we're tagging compatibility hacks for 2.0.51 -> 3.0, the thing that matters is the compatibility additions, not extra (potentially buggy) features. Don't get me wrong- I'm still watching 2.1 bugs, but mainly for correction of stuff w/in rewrite. 2.1 *could* be made into a full release line, I just am convinced the time to do so has come and gone already. Rewrite isn't complete, but the base of it is saner then 2.x's, and people (beyond me) are actively working on it. Further, people are sniffing around re: capabilities the rewrite has natively, N portdir's for example for the -osx crew. My 2 cents, at least. ~harring
pgpskUMjjL4Mq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
