Jim Jagielski wrote:
start cutting alpha releases :-)
I suggested a 2.3.3a about a month ago and the silence was deafening.
As wrowe pointed out, there is a lot of work still to do - modules need
to be documented, or marked for removal if abandoned.
If we branched v2.4.x now, we would have
On Oct 5, 2009, at 7:34 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
start cutting alpha releases :-)
I suggested a 2.3.3a about a month ago and the silence was deafening.
I don't think we're quite ready to branch trunk yet, there is still
more
work to do, but cutting alphas will
Jim Jagielski wrote:
If we are serious about trying to get a 2.4 out this year,
what do people say about branching off trunk at this point,
so we could focus on the required checks while still allowing
trunk to continue unabated?
-1, until we have votes for a beta/almost GA from trunk, -or-
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
If we are serious about trying to get a 2.4 out this year,
what do people say about branching off trunk at this point,
so we could focus on the required checks while still allowing
trunk to continue unabated?
-1, until we have votes for a
On Oct 4, 2009, at 2:21 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
If we are serious about trying to get a 2.4 out this year,
what do people say about branching off trunk at this point,
so we could focus on the required checks while still allowing
trunk to continue unabated?
-1,
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Oct 4, 2009, at 2:21 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
If we are serious about trying to get a 2.4 out this year,
what do people say about branching off trunk at this point,
so we could focus on
Paul Querna wrote:
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Yep. My only fear, as you state, is without some clear consensus that
we want to get a 2.4 out sometime soon, we will be stuck in that
never-ending loop of polishing the turd. ;)
start cutting alpha