Re: Cool Stuff In trunk: (Was: Re: 2.4.x and 2.6.x ... next steps)

2018-09-12 Thread Yann Ylavic
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 2:57 PM Stefan Eissing wrote: > > > > Am 12.09.2018 um 14:48 schrieb Jim Jagielski : > > > > As I said before, the main assumption in my suggestion is that there are > > things in trunk that "really should" be in some releasable version, stuff > > significant enough to wa

Re: Cool Stuff In trunk: (Was: Re: 2.4.x and 2.6.x ... next steps)

2018-09-12 Thread Jim Jagielski
Thanks, this is useful. At first blush, this looks like there is a crap-ton of stuff in trunk than can, and should, be quickly and easily backported to 2.4 asap!! > On Sep 12, 2018, at 10:06 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 7:49 AM Jim Jagielski

Re: Cool Stuff In trunk: (Was: Re: 2.4.x and 2.6.x ... next steps)

2018-09-12 Thread William A Rowe Jr
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 7:49 AM Jim Jagielski wrote: > As I said before, the main assumption in my suggestion is that there are > things in trunk that "really should" be in some releasable version Everything in trunk is now digested into three groups of commits, for inspection. These don't incl

Re: Cool Stuff In trunk: (Was: Re: 2.4.x and 2.6.x ... next steps)

2018-09-12 Thread Stefan Eissing
> Am 12.09.2018 um 14:48 schrieb Jim Jagielski : > > As I said before, the main assumption in my suggestion is that there are > things in trunk that "really should" be in some releasable version, stuff > significant enough to warrant the work, but is "impossible" to be backported > to 2.4. >

Cool Stuff In trunk: (Was: Re: 2.4.x and 2.6.x ... next steps)

2018-09-12 Thread Jim Jagielski
As I said before, the main assumption in my suggestion is that there are things in trunk that "really should" be in some releasable version, stuff significant enough to warrant the work, but is "impossible" to be backported to 2.4. If there are no real significant-but-impossible-to-backport feat