1.0 release [was: Re: One user morne than one time logged in.]

[John (J5) Palmieri]

On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 16:45 -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 20:11 +0000, Robert McQueen wrote:
> > I'd be happy to call the library and daemon 1.0, but I still keep
> > finding serious holes in the bindings I'm using (glib and python) which
> > could very realistically be made hard/impossible to fix by commiting to
> > an ABI. As a random idea, could we move all of the bindings into
> > seperate trees and version them seperately, or do we need to lay down
> > some commitment about what's required for a supported binding for 1.0
> > and get them up to scratch before releasing?
> 
> I agree that the bindings aren't ready to freeze. Whether to put them in
> a separate tree, or just mark them specially as "not yet frozen," I
> don't know.

Having the bindings hold up 1.0 seems silly to me.  Keeping them in tree
for now doesn't bother me and we can state clearly in any release notes
that the bindings are still subject to change.  0.60 has seemed pretty
stable as far as I can see.  We should move it to a beta 0.90 release
and fix up the little nagging bugs.

-- 
John (J5) Palmieri <johnp at redhat.com>