Nathan, On 4/13/11 12:03 PM, Nathan Bubna wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 4:19 AM, Claude Brisson <cla...@renegat.net> wrote: >> On 2011-04-13 11:57, Antonio Petrelli wrote: >>> >>> Hi Claude >>> >>> 2011/4/13 Claude Brisson<cla...@renegat.net> > ... >> >> Then I'd vote for the first solution: have tools-2.1 require engine-2.x once >> it's released. After all, we can backport important changes to tools-2.0.x. > ... > > I agree. At this point, tools is evolving slowly, and what time i do > have to develop velocity will be largely spent on engine 2. I think > it is fine to release fixes to Tools in the 2.0.x branch and have 2.1 > be where we drop support for both Tools 1 config and Engine 1.
Can you confirm that your expectation is that Tools 2.0.x will have at least one more release? I was getting ready to make a few changes and I want to make sure that I commit to the right place. If 2.0.x is essentially dead, then I'll only commit to trunk and leave 2.0.x alone. Thanks, -chris
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
