1.16 Release

[Jonathan Lange]

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Robert
Collins<robert.collins at canonical.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 12:07 +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
>>
>>
>> So the bug should probably be called 'non-development format'; stable
>> is perhaps something you only know after the fact.
>>
>> Are there any more changes needed for it to go into wider testing?  My
>> impression is that more code changes are desirable but we don't think
>> we need more format changes.
>
> I don't have any changes queued for 2.0 for the disk format. I do
> however have code changes where I want to guarantee that only code with
> those changes can read the format.
>

Which means that bumping the format name to '2a' is...
  (a) fine
  (b) tolerable
  (c) a huge mistake

?

jml