>>
>> Exactly my point is that I do not want to wait that all the pending 
>> stuffs are done to start having
>> a new kernel in which we can have fun. So I would like to have the 
>> same process that we got before
>> with some KCP streams.
>>
>
> Ok, yes. That is correct... I hope that we as the KCP group can commit 
> directly to the unstable stream.
> We are at least 3 here, so for the not that complex stuff (and 
> especially fixes to bugs that we add) this
> will help.
>
> For the real complex stuff, we should try to use the scheme that 
> worked in 3.7: After discussion/tests are over,
> declare a temporary freeze of some days, and get the stuff in.
>
> Of course, we need to think about what kind of changes we want in 
> 3.8... As much as I'm in the "lets change
> everything" camp, maybe for 3.8 we should be a bit cautious, as this 
> will be the release that a lot of projects
> will depend on for a while.
>
> So I would like to move 3.8 to beta as soon as possible, and then 
> concentrate to do the cool stuff in 3.9.
>
> I am not realy happy with that, as it is booring, and it is actualy 
> quite the opposite of what I need for my stuff.
> Maybe I would feel better If those who realy need that stable version 
> would a) tell so and b) would put in some time ?
>
> For those in need of stability: Maybe one idea would be if those could 
> step forward and just *do* the 3.8 release.
> That is, get the harvested stuff in, harvest some more, declare a 
> beta, coordinate the beta and gamma phase,
> help with the full image... the only reason why 3.7 took so long was 
> that everybody involved does not
> care if the release is done today or next week, because they don't 
> need it.

Indeed I have the same feeling here ;)
Let us see if some stable guys will show up :)