On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:53 PM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just don't understand the urgency to start adding new features to 1.6. If
> there's a standing patch, then we're in great shape for the second we do.
> But once we switch the trunk to 1.6, it does flag a lot of transition work
> to be done (version numbers, purging deprecated code, etc.)
Changing the version numbers will have to be done at some point by
someone. Its a lot of work for sed, but not much human effort.
Purging deprecated code is something that needs to be considered
before 1.6 is released, not after we branch.
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Keith Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:20 PM, John Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I think we should hold off for a few days, perhaps a week or two, just so
>> > we have more time for bug squashing without concerns about merging bug
>> > fixes.
>> I have also wanted to avoid doing this, I did not want to do until
>> there was a reason. It has been 3 or 4 weeks since feature freeze.
>> While working on the recent patch from Damon I was thinking I would
>> like to put this in svn when its ready. But I am not sure if it
>> should go in 1.5. Its not a bug fix. I would like to avoid having
>> discussions about what to do about every non bug fix. I am thinking
>> avoiding these discussions may save us more time than merging.
>> It should be very easy to automatically merge all changes from 1.5 to
>> trunk as long as no one make massive changes to trunk. I can take
>> point on doing this until we release 1.5.0. I will make sure all bug
>> fixes in 1.5 branch end up in trunk.
>> What do you think?
>> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Keith Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> I propose we branch 1.5. We are passed the feature freeze for 1.5 and
>> >> it would be nice to be able to commit some recent contributions to
>> >> trunk.
>> >> If no one objects I will create the branch Tuesday morning.
>> >> Keith