On 05/08/2009 08:44 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
Yeah, I haven't put a lot of effort into such a thing myself. It'd be
far easier if we didn't have multiple active releases at any time, or
didn't allow version bumps in N-* releases. Of course, those are even
more "flamey" topics.
If we don't maintain two general releases in parallel, we are cutting
short to a six month release *and* update cycle instead of a release
cycle of six months and update cycle of 13 months, approx. Do you have
an alternative?
Rahul