Danny Angus ha scritto: > On 8/3/07, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I also agree that it added confusion: I had a clear view on what >> next-minor and next-major was and at that time I thought it was clear to >> everyone (I'm used to labels to identify software sprints). But the >> facts proved my believing was wrong. > > I think that was the problem, not that it was a bad idea, but that we > didn't all have the same understanding. We use labels in this way at > work too, to great effect, somehow it just didn't catch on here.
FWIW, even now that we have 3.0 instead of next-major, I don't have an understanding of people preferences/ideas about the future of JAMES. Not that my understanding is important now, but I hope someone will better collect such moods/opinions. It "seems" we now agree we need a 3.0M1, this would be already a great step: I really hope to see a 3.0M1 out there, soon! My opinion is unchanged since next-major: imho we can have a release even tomorrow, maybe we should consider whether it is better to release another version of the handlerapi (the current trunk) or it is better to release 3.0M1 using the 2.3.1 handlerapi, or it is better to release one of the experimental handlerapi. I'm not a fan of the current handlerapi as I think it introduce incompatibilities with the experimental 2.3.x support and it does not provide a sufficient platform for the future (so I expect to see further changes there sooner or later), but for the major goal of a release I'd sacrifice almost anything, so I'm fine with any code will be there. Stefano --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
