On Monday 08 April 2002 03:44 pm, Guido van Rossum wrote:
GvR> Or maybe 2.3 should become 2.2.3. <0.5 wink> BAW> I think the new bool type has already prevented that. SM> Why? If you postulate that 2.even.x become the experimental SM> release branches, then 2.2.3 with a bool type makes perfect SM> sense.
BAW> Given that interpretation, I'd agree.
If we're going for an even/odd scheme, I wouldn't want to swap the Linux convention, so 2.2 would have to be stable, and 2.3 experimental. Given Alex's comments on 2.2, I don't think it's too far of a stretch to label 2.2 stable after the fact. It could make it easier to start experimenting with stuff in 2.3.
Personally, I'd just _love_ this arrangement. 2.2. stable, 2.3. experimental -- and once you have a 2.3.x, for some value of x, that you judge IS worth becoming the next Stable branch, you can make it 2.4.0, or 2.4, or 3.0 -- whatever fits best.
I also like the idea of doing away with alpha/beta releases and use micro releases instead.
Yay for the Experimental branch -- not sure about the Stable branch, but we can think about at at the time 2.4 or whatever is ready; part of the arrangement should IMHO be to change the current commitment to twice-yearly-minor-releases into a "release early, release often" idea for Experimental, "release when needed to get important bug-fixes or backported stuff" for 2.Stable.microrelease -- but 2.(NextStable).0 should be solid when it happens (break compatibility with 2.PreviousStable. only in specified ways, for example). Maybe that comes for free from 2.4.0 being == 2.3.something -- that depends on how popular the 2.3. branch becomes, I guess. Hard to predict (offhand, it would seem to me that 2.3.* will be very popular, but I wouldn't be astonished if that proved to not be the case).
I guess we'd have to issue a press release (we may already be doing one for 2.2.1, we may have to add some words to it).
Seems an opportunity (to send a nice-sounding message to a certain segment of the development community).
Maybe I should PEP it first? :-)
Why not -- if you don't announce the PEP on c.l.p there shouldn't be too much troublesome bickering about it anyway:-).