Re: Branching 3.0-stable, starting 3.1-dev, comments?

[Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Theo Van Dinter writes:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 04:33:23PM -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> > I think a "final" rc5 today, fork off a 3.0 stable branch/open 3.1
> > development, let the rc run for a week, then do the release on the 21st.  +1
> 
> We were chatting about this elsewhere, but I wanted to put it up on dev to get
> a wider audience.
> 
> rc5 was released on Monday.  We've slowly been getting fewer and fewer issues
> with the rcs, which is what we wanted, and 3.0.0 is very stable at this
> point.
> 
> There is a ticket (bug 3773) open about branching off 3.0 (stable) and
> thereby starting the 3.1 (devel) cycle.  It has 3 +1s, and was waiting for
> the rc5 release to occur.  If anyone is against branching, speak up soon!
> We'll probably branch on Tuesday unless there's an issue.
> 
> With rc5, the clock has started again -- 1 week with no issues, and we can
> consider a release.  The current plan is the 21st for a final release, btw.

I'm quite out of touch this week, travelling.   But in my opinion we
should not hold 3.0.0 until there's "no issues" -- I think we just have
too many users to use such a strict rule now, and some minor bugs quite
possibly may crop up between then and now.

So I'd suggest we just see in a week's time how we feel about it;  in my
opinion, unless something major (like a MIME parser change again) crops
up, we should release 3.0.0 anyway even if there's been 1 or 2 small
checkins.

- --j.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS

iD8DBQFBRt8aQTcbUG5Y7woRAvibAJ4mNF++AtrV17ZMu8vup7hUtIOQYgCglMiM
YH5HXFU3rhd/CpCN1pMHUXg=
=dZRr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----