<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Joshua Bernstein <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jbernstein@penguincomputing.com">jbernstein@penguincomputing.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
Chris Samuel wrote:<br>
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 06:03:38 am Garrick Staples wrote:<br>
><br>
>> I whole-heartedly agree with this position.<br>
><br>
> Back in February Ken posted to the Torqueusers list on a thread about lots of<br>
> OK messages being logged, saying:<br>
><br>
> # 2.4.5 seems to be a pretty stable version. I would recommend moving<br>
> # there. It has new features and it is where enhancements will be made<br>
> # in the future. The 2.3.x branch will have bug fixes only.<br>
><br>
> Perhaps that's a good compromise position - that way 2.4 can get new features<br>
> and 2.3 can be the ultra-stable branch. Then when 2.5 comes out it gets new<br>
> features and 2.4 goes into bug-fix only mode.<br>
<br>
</div>I'll agree with Chris here, and say that Ken's comments make a ton of sense.<br></blockquote></div><br><br>I think this makes a lot of sense. <br><br>We have the next version under development, released as snapshots for early adopters or people interested in testing out new features under development<br>
<br>We have the latest release, which gets bug fixes and "safe" well tested minor enhancements<br><br>We have a stable release, which only gets well tested bug fixes. <br><br><br>Right now 2.3.x will be the stable release, once 2.5 is out, 2.4 becomes stable and 2.3 is deprecated (unless someone wants to maintain it forever like Garrick and 2.1.x). <br>