I've just been at the OCT meeting working out how the .LRN and OpenAS coordination will work.
It came up, who would upgrade to .LRN 2.1 as it is defined above? The thing is, it will just be a quick release (basically a labelling) that will capture the OpenACS 5.1 changes. However, there is another way. If someone wanted one of those changes, they could upgrade the OpenACS packages via the APM.
There is one other trick in that picture. The file storage package in OpenACS 5.1 has a big upgrade and the other packages don't work with that yet. So as a whole complete picture, it doesn't make sense yet for .LRN.
The idea came up in the meeting that maybe .LRN 2.1 should be the stability release that we are working on for the summer.
So give me feedback, if I don't put together a tarball that includes the OpenACS 5.1 changes, will that effect anyone? If I don't hear back, I'm not going to cut this release and put all my focus on the project plan for a well-tested version.
Can we all get on board on working on a really stable, well tested .LRN release for this summer?
