> Ok. Does that mean we aren't going to have a 2.2? That we'll do 2.1.1,
> 2.1.2, 2.1.3 and then move to 3.0?
We might do a v2.2. I figure that development that CAN be done on the
current code base without risk should be done, and development that requires
new APIs will be done on v3.
> > 1/ it wasn't a year of dev.
> Sorry, I thought I read that is someone's message. My bad.
James 2.0a3 went out in May or so.
> I think I'm confused. Are we just moving from v2.1 directly to v3?
>From my perspective, James v2 is the current stable code base with NO API
CHANGES. James v3 is the new codebase with substantial API changes. That
is how I distinguish between them.
--- Noel
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
