Vadim Gritsenko wrote:
Another thing to keep in mind is that if everybody starts developing 2.2 and nobody works on 2.1+, then it makes sense to copy all of the blocks to 2.2 as well, and 2.1 will become "historical".
Please don't call it like this. Let users have a stable version for a while before labeling it as "historical": they had a bad time during the past months convincing their bosses that the 2.1 CVS version was OK even if unreleased, now let's not get them into trouble trying to convince the pointy-haired ones that "historical" doesn't mean "unsupported" and "old". :-)
;-)
The only issue is that we are back to maintaining two or even three (if counting 2.0.x) versions of the code. I thought we might have some pause before starting new 2.2 repository.
Vadim
