Ralph Goers dijo: > It is highly unlikely that the project I am working on will use 2.2 as we > have to be in production early next year and a significant amount of work > has already been done. > > I am very much in favor of continuing to add new features to 2.1 (such as > the patch I just submitted), especially when they are completely binary > compatible. I believe 2.1 has a long life ahead of it. > > Frankly, I'd prefer that the current 2.2 become 3.0 and the incompatible > changes go into a new 2.2. It is my impression that what is now in 2.2 is > going to end up being quite different from 2.1 and that it should not just > be a point release. This would allow me to migrate to stay on 2.1 and > maintain binary compatibility, move to 2.2 at the risk of minor > incompatibilities, or move up to 3.0 where major differences happen. I > realize there is a risk with this, as nobody really likes to maintain two > releases at one time, so 2.1 is likely to stagnate.
Same here. A question (just trying to understand): that means we can also drop the support for old avalon components in 3.0. Is this correct? Best Regards, Antonio Gallardo
