On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 07:46:24PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On 08/29/05  Brian Harring wrote:
> > That and the fact the 2.1 state should be decided, if we're going to 
> > have (effectively) two branches of development going at once, vs 
> > developmental line and maintenance branch.
> 
> Well, basically I wanted to deploy elog and Jason mentioned some other
> changes as well, and while talking about it we couldn't find much in
> head that we didn't want out. Unfortunately you weren't around at that
> time. Also I think we could use 2.1 to add all the hacks we need for
> transitioning (like the EAPI and Manifest stuff).

I'd rather tag the hacks into stable release, as what the EAPI 
patch is intended to do.  Reasoning is pretty straightforward; I trust 
stable code to hold less user visible bugs now, then what 2.1 would 
hold- stable has been shoved through the ringer; 2.1 hasn't been 
shoved through a comparable ringer.  Further, if we're tagging 
compatibility hacks for 2.0.51 -> 3.0, the thing that matters is the 
compatibility additions, not extra (potentially buggy) features.

Don't get me wrong- I'm still watching 2.1 bugs, but mainly for 
correction of stuff w/in rewrite.

2.1 *could* be made into a full release line, I just am convinced the 
time to do so has come and gone already.  Rewrite isn't complete, 
but the base of it is saner then 2.x's, and people (beyond me) are 
actively working on it.

Further, people are sniffing around re: capabilities the rewrite has 
natively, N portdir's for example for the -osx crew.

My 2 cents, at least.
~harring