On 2009-01-29 01:59, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
I think there is definitely something to the notion that the 3.x vs. 3.0.y distinction should signal something, and I personally like MAL's suggestion that 3.0.x should be marked some sort of beta in perpetuity, or at least until 3.1 is ready to ship as stable and production-ready. (That's AIUI, MAL's intent may be somewhat different.)
That's basically it, yes. I don't think that marking 3.0 as experimental is bad in any way, as long as we're clear about it. Having lots of incompatible changes in a patch level release will start to get users worrying about the stability of the 3.x branch anyway, so a heads-up message and clear perspective for the 3.1 release is a lot better than dumping 3.0 altogether or not providing such a perspective at all. That said, we should stick to the statement already made for 3.0 (too early as it now appears), ie. that the same development and releases processes will apply to the 3.x branch as we have for 2.x - starting with 3.1. -- Marc-Andre Lemburg eGenix.com Professional Python Services directly from the Source (#1, Jan 29 2009)
Python/Zope Consulting and Support ... http://www.egenix.com/ mxODBC.Zope.Database.Adapter ... http://zope.egenix.com/ mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ... http://python.egenix.com/
::: Try our new mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! :::: eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH Pastor-Loeh-Str.48 D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611 http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/