On 7/31/07, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: > > trunk has been dubbed 'next-major' for a long time now. a lot of extra > > function has been added to trunk and though a full release is > > definitely a long way in the future, the time seems right now to > > decide that a future release from this code stream will be designated > > 3.0. > > This is not correct,
(IMHO correct but incomplete: the artifacts created by the trunk build are named next-major) > let me explain: > next-major was the name assigned to a tentative release and branching > trunk was in the plan for next-major. The difference between trunk and > next-major was in the planning/scheduling and was present in JIRA when > we used this labels to discuss what was going to land next-major > (storage/config compatible) and what would have had to wait the > following (storage/config incompatible). i would prefer the storage/config compatibility issue to be managed by experimental modules. this means that people can code whatever new features without having to wait for some future next-major to be cut. > > dubbing trunk 3.0 does imply that if the 2.x code base requires a new > > major release then this will take the 4.0 designation. i have no > > problem with that contingency. > > I don't understand this sentence. Can you explain? > AFAIK no one ever though to create major releases starting from the 2.x > branches. The only proposal we had was for a minor release based on 2.x > (and if Noel will come back sooner or later with this goal I think we > all already agreed on the 2.4 number) just thinking about contingencies: would probably have been cleaner and clearer to avoid speculating about the future right now. <snip> > In fact I think it should be better to define what to release and then > define the number to use, but I'm fine with *any* number as long as it > doesn't affect releasing asap (trivia: the trunk in 2004 was named 3.0). > I would like to know if the goal to keep storage/config.xml > compatibility is a priority in the 3.0 or not: IMHO this is the only > important thing to be able to dedice what can be included in trunk and > what will have to wait for trunk to become a branch. i think that it helps to have a good name for a distant collective goal - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
