Re: Most likely 1.3 1st then 2.x

On 08/24/2007 02:54 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> 
> To be honest, I can't see holding off the 1.3 release
any longer
> while we're waiting on APR as well as stuff is being
added
> to the 2.x trees... It's kind of embarrassing.
> 
> So even though I have most of the files setup for
triple
> release, I think next week I'll just release 1.3 and
we
> can the release 2.x when ready and not continue to
hold
> our 1.3 users hostage.

+1. I think the number of people going back to 1.3 from 2.0
/ 2.2
because this 1.3 release is "newer" than the
latest 2.0 / 2.2 release
is comparable low.
As far as I understand this "downgrade" scenario
is one of the reasons
why we aim to release all stable branches at the same point
of time.

Regards

Rüdiger

Ruediger Pluem wrote:

> On 08/24/2007 02:54 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> To be honest, I can't see holding off the 1.3
release any longer
>> while we're waiting on APR as well as stuff is
being added
>> to the 2.x trees... It's kind of embarrassing.

+1.

> As far as I understand this "downgrade"
scenario is one of the reasons
> why we aim to release all stable branches at the same
point of time.

It might help to keep the release quiet: put the code out
there and
update the page, but keep it off the front page and out of
the public
channels.

We can even do the same for 2.0.x once we have our
regression fixed, and
then make a splash for all three when 2.2.x is done.

S.