Robert Collins wrote:
> I understand the difference you are making between the two ways of
> expressing it.
>
> 2.6: as per the TODO.
> 2.7: nothing definately slated. (Some possibles in the TODO).
> 3.0: ????
>
> So, when you say 'begin development on 3.0', I'm not sure how you
> differentiate that from 2.6/2.7. Other than language that is. And if
> language is the only differentiator, then language IS the metric for
> having 3.0 ready.
The 3.0.STABLE is in my opinion at a minimum the version after language
conversion plus refactoring needed to make us reasonably happy about the
code.
If we start 3.0 now the likelyhood for a 2.7 release decreases significantly
as most new development should then be done in the 3.0 branch where possible,
and the stability of 2.6 is also likely to suffer due to less attention by
developers.
> Also, from a risk management perspective, we should release a C++
> version with minimal C++ features as soon as we complete the conversion,
> to get feedback and provide a baseline.
Which may well be 3.0.DEVEL1 in my opinion, or what users do you plan on
target with this C++ version?
Regards
Henrik
Received on Tue Oct 08 2002 - 09:10:52 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:16:54 MST