Re: 2.16 release candidate 3 imminent

[Graham Percival]

On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 05:27:00PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> I would very much prefer the work on Issue 2240 (aka 2070) to make it
> into 2.16.  It is a significant API change that should not occur during
> a stable release series, and it paves the way for making the music
> function work continue smoothly enough that backporting further
> enhancements into a stable 2.16 series would be feasible.

IMO, significant API changes should not happen right before a
release.  Version numbers are cheap; why not have 2.18 in March
2012?  Backporting is a huge hassle.

But I'm not going to kick up a fuss about it.  I've marked 2240 as
Critical.

- Graham