On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:26:48AM +0100, Christian Heimes wrote: > Maybe we should select an assistant release manager for the next > releases. It's lots of work to handle two releases at the same time. A Will 3.1 and 2.7 also be parallel releases? (I ask, not having read the 3xxx PEPS at all.) If yes, why? While I can see a case for 2.6/3.0 being in sync -- new features in 2.6 ease the transition to 3.0 -- I'd imagine that 3.1 would be better with a shorter cycle (6-9 months) because there are more possible rough edges to clean up. 3.1 would likely include bugfixes from the eventual 2.7, so 3.1 might also trigger 2.6.1, but I don't think there's any harm if 3.1 contains features or incompatible fixes that are unavailable to 2.x users. --amk
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4