Hello, maybe we could mix both approaches. Following James, releases could be feature-based, using the JIRA system. If after 3 months, the goal is reached, we could release.
However, as Gilles suggested we could at least do our best to at least try and release twice a year. This means that about a month before the "deadline", we could all review the present state of the library, and decide what should be done to get it released. That's what happened in 3.0: there was an urge for a release, so some feature requests were just postponed, and we all tried to clear up the most urgent JIRA tickets. As for working both on 3.1 and 4.0, I'm all for it (means I'll probably be struggling again with svn, though...). Sébastien --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
