Norman Maurer wrote:
Hi all,
i start this vote because i want to get an idea what other developers
think about this. Here are the possible solutions:
1) Commit fixes and new "minor" features to 2.3 branch:
+1.
My point is: we need fixes plus minor features applied to code branch
that we can consider stable and safe, being used by most (I suppose)
people (the ones that have started to use 2.3.0). So let's try to do it,
with the goal of cutting a release quite soon, and limiting the new
minor features that we can consider really "minor".
When we cut it we vote on changing the name to 2.4.0 if there are *not
only* fixes (and I would vote +1 to such name change).
In other words, let's keep only one branch other than trunk and let's
work on both. And the current 2.3 branch is already "next-minor" (we may
already rename it for clarity).
The idea is that whatever goes into the 2.3/2.4/next-minor branch is
aimed to maximum stability and compatibility, and if something is not so
safe it *must* be optional and documented as such.
Moreover, I think that we are responsible enough to evaluate (the
unfortunately few of us that will do them) if a minor feature is really
low risk and could go into this branch, so I think that lazy consensus
is much better than voting every time. And for such minor stuff a road
map is bureaucracy. Next minor is
Finally, let's avoid religion wars around names :-) , and let's avoid
becoming like the Italian Parliament these days ;-) .
2) Commit only bugfixes to 2.3 branch:
-0
So please cast your votes and tell me what you prefer.
bye
Norman
Vincenzo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
