Another Q. If a branch is made, would the code there have to maintained ? Would bug fixes in 1.2 be rolled into the trunk as well as the M1 branch ? I hope not.
I hope it is just for tagging purpose and the code there would not have to be maintained post M1 release. Cheers Prasad On 12/11/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why? I don't see why we would want to make a branch just for 2.0-m1. SVN is not the best tool for working with many branches, so I would recommend keeping the active branches to an absolute minimum. What happened to stabilizing 1.2 and getting that out? I think that if you want to make 2.0-m1, then just pick a time on trunk when it looks good, then make the release and move on to the next milestone. IMO adding more branches here will just complicate the matter way more than it needs to be for a pre-alpha release. --jason On Dec 11, 2006, at 1:05 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: > All, > > Being the overly optimistic one that I am I'd like to branch trunk > tomorrow in the afternoon. The goal of the branch is to stabilize > a milestone release with the content previously discussed. > > So far it looks like we have: > > JSF, > Java Mail > Tomcat 6 > Jetty 6 > JSTL > Java 1.5 ready > and JPA > > I think Kevan is working on the specs which need to be completed > for Geronimo 2.0 as well as 1.2. OpenEJB will need to release as > well so I'm hoping to have an answer on the DayTrader issues > tonight or tomorrow. > > I'm currently working through some issues with DayTrader on 1.2 > which also apply to Geronimo 2.0. My thiking is that people will > continue to work on trunk (2.0) while the M1 release is cleaned and > made ready. I'll do the packaging and people can happily continue > to hack away at trunk. > > Any major items missing? > > Matt Hogstrom > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
