> I'm not sure why we would merge changes from head onto an old branch. I > could see us making small fixes to the branch and pushing those changes > back into head, but not really vice versa.
Yeah. > It's a meritocracy, so if someone wants to work on it, they can. It's > very hard to keep a part-time volunteer in a leadership role, i.e., have > the community decide on this or that. Best we can do is provide avenues > so the people who want near-term stable 2.1.x release can work on that > and the people passionate about a longer term release can work there. > The two directions are pretty congruous as I would expect most relevant > changes in 2.1.x to get pushed into 3.x. Eventually 3.x will need to > get this short-term release passion, so 2.x people can move to 3.x and > we can get a solid release of 3.x out. I believe that because we can't guarentee ownership of the 2.1 code once everyone is happy twiddling with 3.x it should be a branch, and thus still "owned" d. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
