Re: Stable branch on May 21 feasible?

[Neil Jerram]

>>>>> "Rob" == Rob Browning <address@hidden> writes:

    Rob> Neil Jerram <address@hidden> writes:
    >> Speaking only for myself: I am unlikely to have time to add
    >> much new documentation this week, and I'm on holiday for two
    >> weeks from Saturday 19th.

    Rob> So do you think we should delay?  Do you have things pending
    Rob> that you think should go in before 1.6.0, and are these
    Rob> things mostly documentation?  I'd be comfortable accepting
    Rob> documentation changes up through the final stages before the
    Rob> actual release.

Sorry for not being clear.  No, I don't think we should delay at all.
As far as I am concerned, I would be happy for you to go ahead with
the next release stage even before Saturday 19th.  In general, I would
prefer us to be less careful and more into an early-and-often release
mode.

As I've said elsewhere, the one thing that I'd really _like_ to clear
up before release is the GH question.  But even there, I don't think
we should delay the release.  If it happens, good; if not, I hope that
it won't be too long before we get to 1.8.0.  (In fact, whenever we do
resolve (and document) the GH issue, that may be reason enough in
itself for a new release.)

        Neil