[x] Freeze the code, move to MINA 2.0-RC1 But I agree with Julien, that the docs should improve before going to RC
-1 for "using a N.5 for unstable versions, and N.0 for stable versions." I really dislike conventions based on numbers. We already discussed this in the past : http://mina.markmail.org/message/hymzddmoteiatcwq Milestone -> Release Candidate -> General Availability is a well know version naming scheme It's described here: http://mina.apache.org/downloads.html I really don't see why we would change the version naming scheme again. Of course it's a matter of taste so we can have long discussions about it ... (not sure that it would be productive though) regards, Maarten On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Edouard De Oliveira wrote: > >> By drawing aside N.1 and N.2 do you mean we will only do bug fixes on the >> 2.0 branch and new features will only go to 2.5 branch ? I'm not saying i >> disagree i just want to make your statement more clear. >> >> > This is exactly what I have in mind. However, it's just a convention. It's > all about the message we want to carry to our users. > > > -- > -- > cordialement, regards, > Emmanuel Lécharny > www.iktek.com > directory.apache.org > > >
