The master branch hasn't diverged much from the 3.0.x branch at this point. I can't name any divergence off the top of my head. I would expect 3.0.x to be more stable, but if there is another reason to go forth with master then I wouldn't stop that for stability reasons.
> New features going to master for 4.1.x (though our focus should really be on > getting an ASF-acceptable release out) Rename the 3.0.x branch to 4.0.x to > reflect reality. Renaming the branch will create confusion. The previous 3.0.x releases have already been done off of it so all the committers (and anyone else that has been looking at the code) are expecting this to be the 3.0.x release set. We could plausibly cut a 4.0.0 and future 4.0.x releases off the 3.0.x branch. That is a little odd but (IMO) less confusing than renaming the branch out from under people. We could also take a 4.0.x branch off 3.0.x or master. That leaves open the option of a later 3.0.x release on the 3.0.x branch. That seems the cleanest approach to me, but it would add some additional branch management overhead if fixes are needed in both 3.0.x and 4.0.x. I might have a slight preference to branching 4.0.x off master. Then we would establish a pattern that major releases get branched from master, as was done for 3.0.0 and 4.0.0. This would extend naturally into 5.0.0, etc. and is easy to explain to new committers. But someone should take the master code for a spin and check the stability to confirm my first paragraph... -kevin
