On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 2:08 PM, Nick Kew <niq@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> That's not quite fair.
>> For me, to be honest, I couldn't quite understand the question at
>> all... I had a real hard time parsing it. It looked like, by voting +1,
>> I would also be agreeing to other things (like disallowing
>> any new features or enhancements to any release) which
>> would be unacceptable.
> +1. I’d be uneasy about that clause without a much more in-depth
> review of its context, which isn’t going to work as a mailinglist
> discussion (too confusing; TL;DR).
> At the same time, I applaud what Bill is trying to do. We have a
> problem, we discuss it, the discussion goes nowhere, Bill makes
> a valiant effort to take it somewhere.
+1, I'd first like to thank Bill for trying to reach a consensus on
our release numbering/policy.
In the same time, I'm not sure three PMC members wanting a
bug/security fixes only branch can prevent three others to backport
So I'd like to ear Bill's further suggestions to "find mechanisms to
accomplish this goal" which we could all agree/amend on, and move
forward for the community benefits!
Bill, withdrawing from the discussion shouldn't be the next step I
think, please describe the whole picture as you see it (again? sorry
if that happened already in the many/too much threads on the subject,
at least I couldn't have that big picture yet).
There is certainly a way to have both a conservative release (not
exactly cast in stone either, to which extent?) and another or more
ones with less API/ABI garantees (which grow faster and attract devs,
It seems that the status quo is not what all of us/the community want, either.