> b.) Cut a 5.0 branch when the major release-defining element (maybe > CEP-21?) merges to trunk, with the shared understanding (possibly what > we're disagreeing about) that very little of what we need to test/de-risk > is going to be inhibited by not cutting that branch earlier (and that > certain testing efforts would be almost wholesale wasted if done > beforehand). >
Yup, it's (b) for me, and everything minus 21 and 15 is defining enough to warrant the branching and a checkpoint where testing can start and not be wasted. I understand that cep-21 changes a lot and that impacts testing, but I wholeheartedly trust testers to be taking this into consideration.
