Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 10:20:42AM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 10:15:30PM -0700, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>>> [moving this to dev@ - apologies to those joining us mid-program]
>> It's lacking one important bit of context (see below).
>>
>>>> On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 5:19 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <justin_at_erenkrantz.com> wrote:
>>>>> Let's just create 1.6 *today* that has that feature and move on.
>>>>> There is no reason that we need to wait six months to get this feature
>>>>> in the hands of our users.
>>>>> Now, that said, since CollabNet apparently really wants to see this
>>>>> feature out,
>> Which feature?
>
> Another issue that comes to mind is whether we can really afford
> to phase out 1.5.x that quickly. Not everyone will want to upgrade
> again in a few weeks time because 1.6 is out. Do we want to maintain
> two backport branches, 1.5.x and 1.6.x, at least for a while?
> If so, can we afford the workload of doing this?
> OTOH , I'd expect the 1.5 -> 1.6 transition to be relatively
> painless for most users given the relatively small changeset,
> so this may not really be much of an issue.
Our policy, in principle at least, has been to support the two most recent minor
versions concurrently. Under that policy, releasing 1.6.x would drop support
for 1.4.x, but that decision is being debated elsewhere in this thread.
-Hyrum
Received on 2008-08-07 18:17:33 CEST