Received: by 10.90.49.3 with SMTP id w3mr574517agw.28.1213280511992;
        Thu, 12 Jun 2008 07:21:51 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <jacob.kaplanm...@gmail.com>
Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (py-out-1112.google.com [64.233.166.179])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTP id x46si336158pyg.2.2008.06.12.07.21.50;
        Thu, 12 Jun 2008 07:21:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jacob.kaplanm...@gmail.com designates 64.233.166.179 as permitted sender) client-ip=64.233.166.179;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jacob.kaplanm...@gmail.com designates 64.233.166.179 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jacob.kaplanm...@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header...@gmail.com
Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id b50so1346616pyh.30
        for <django-developers@googlegroups.com>; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 07:21:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to
         :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        bh=suuQOjb5kWvkUHgvMt50i7znpqlXU1cCn1fubpQS5w4=;
        b=TSejaEuIuLVhI/n4EN5yR7yDkt3YAvlsa9XI6IyusZ5a2GWkznQH5X4oCklmqAh1yD
         OFIm53NekntjhV6x2Wa7UUY/GQU5E1U8fgeUcvjdkWQSu8pO/o94Hll3UShX5lspbjeR
         8JnXWixC7DZ+MdtwtS2b2OESYGO7RWLscRtG8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition
         :references;
        b=OHz3hj+Xs/Wx1v29HN/LI2pbxxrp72b/PVqdA6Vp1MKY2vBERkZSAiJLMPS1UlSgCF
         Hqc2bvA8b+VbUk0i6+Qm669cBYb2hX3SsMg24tb6CF3AzsGHNcEqIpMmSARkgein7tS1
         w1h6rhkFZt+t3G+z4LC+FRYNDPMFFrJ1KtutQ=
Received: by 10.141.50.11 with SMTP id c11mr916967rvk.141.1213280510556;
        Thu, 12 Jun 2008 07:21:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.141.51.7 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Jun 2008 07:21:50 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <be4ebbe10806120721pe33a6c8paaa49d2eb01fb...@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:21:50 -0500
From: "Jacob Kaplan-Moss" <jacob.kaplanm...@gmail.com>
To: django-developers@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: RFC: Django 1.0 roadmap and timeline
In-Reply-To: <14c096d3-51ad-4919-8a30-0cd2a9db9...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <be4ebbe10806111903y18a55c65sa5f1922d373ff...@mail.gmail.com>
	 <14c096d3-51ad-4919-8a30-0cd2a9db9...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>

On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 11:17 PM, metaj...@gmail.com <metaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have to ask why must Django prevent work in this regard?

It's not so much about "preventing" work -- nobody here works *for*
me, and I can't really tell anybody what to do. It's more about
focusing priorities. So the idea is that if someone comes along
wanting to help, we can show them a todo list of features that'll
actually help us hit 1.0 on schedule.

If people are excited about other database backends they of *course*
can work on them, but we'll simply defer discussion of including the
backend in Django until after 1.0 ships. I'm OK doing this since
database backends can be external (i.e.
http://code.google.com/p/django-mssql/).

> The schedule looks good.  I think you should be hardlined about the
> dates and not as hardlined on what makes it in.

That's the plan. Only the "blocker" features actually can delay the
release, and I expect them to be done (sans bug fixes) by that alpha
date.

> I would even consider dropping all but security patches to 0.96.  That
> is practically the limit of support anyway it seems, and is not likely
> to cause much work.

Good thoughts, but let's table this discussion until we actually get
around to appointing version managers; if we try to tackle too much
process now my head asplode.

Jacob