[development] death to "x.y.z" version is now inevitable

[Angela Byron]

On 14-Nov-06, at 10:02 PM, Moshe Weitzman wrote:

>> 6.x-dev vs. 5.x-dev is great, as it clearly defines "this is  
>> something that should get fixed in this release" vs. "this is  
>> something we should put off until the next release."
>
> isn't that basically what status=postponed means? we should remove  
> 6.x-dev or postponed, IMO.

Hm. Maybe. I like 6.x-dev because then it's already logged against  
the correct version; I don't need to go back and re-activate feature  
requests when HEAD un-thaws again.

"postponed" I like to think of as a "this change is way too big, and  
needs more thinking, so let's postpone it until we can focus on it  
properly" vs. "It won't get in this release, but it's a relatively  
minor change so people might want to conceivably work on it before  
HEAD formally un-thaws." Further, the "postponed" status can also be  
useful for other, non-core issue queues (I use it in my modules'  
issue queues to mark issues either that I don't plan to fix right  
away but will entertain the idea at some point in the future, or  
those that I don't can't fix until I fix some other blocker bug).

So basically, both seem like they have their place.

-Angie