Mark Thomas wrote: > Bill Barker wrote: >> I'm so tired of this thread, so let's settle it once and for all. I'm >> backing Remy's suggestion to send the current trunk to the sandbox: >> [X] +1 Let's end the revolution >> [ ] +0 What revolution? >> [ ] -1 Viva the revolultion > > This applies to this proposal only. Other changes should be proposed > in other threads.
Expanding on what I said on private@ as I see no reason for it not to be part of the public discussion... I don't see a need for a separate 6.0.x and 6.1.x development at this point. I have yet to see a convincing technical argument that there is something sufficiently new and/or different to justify this overhead. There is enough work to do to maintain 4.1.x, 5.0.x (which we aren't doing a great job of and I am several months past my promise to do a security release for 5.0.x), 5.5.x and 6.0.x without adding yet an other branch. Simply, trunk should never have been called trunk, it is a branch. It should be moved to 6.0.x/branches/whatever In terms of moving forward, merge the changes in 'trunk' to 6.0.x. Ideally this should be done commit by commit or groups of related commits so we can discuss each of the additions if necessary. If any attract a veto or are viewed as too experimental etc they can stay in 6.0.x/branches/whatever until the issues are resolved or that feature is abandoned. My expectation is that 99% of what is in /trunk can move to 6.0.x/trunk with little or no debate. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
