As always, Martijn has prettymuch hit the nail on the head with this
mail, +lots to all the points he raises...
Chris
Martijn Faassen wrote:
I think we've concluded a number of things:
* some developers (Andreas in particular) do not consider it a huge
problem to keep maintaining an older v
Chris Withers wrote:
Martijn Faassen wrote:
+1
Extending the maintenance period for older branches indeed sounds like
a good idea.
Hang on, that makes things even worse for the already-stressed
developers though. The branches there are combined with the longer
they're stable for gives you
Martijn Faassen wrote:
+1
Extending the maintenance period for older branches indeed sounds like a
good idea.
Hang on, that makes things even worse for the already-stressed
developers though. The branches there are combined with the longer
they're stable for gives you the "developer stress
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 16 Jun 2006, at 10:28, Andreas Jung wrote:
My recommendation:
1 yr deprecation period as it is now
1 yr + X maintenance period for older branches.
+1
Extending the maintenance period for older branches indeed sounds li
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 16 Jun 2006, at 10:28, Andreas Jung wrote:
My recommendation:
1 yr deprecation period as it is now
1 yr + X maintenance period for older branches.
+1
jens
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFEkm+bRAx5nvEhZLIR
