I am also not sure, what Mergere does, when they want something special?
I am refering to the maven development.
Maybe should post this on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list ? On 8/14/06, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In general, yes, we just have a public branch for a > release which continues to be maintained, which > is a good thing. > > My concern is that, in this case, the one calling > for the branch is not the Trinidad/MyFaces community, > but a specific company. Ideally, the two match up > and agree, in which case there's no problem. But > the question is - when a company wants an extra > branch that the community at large doesn't need, is > that a problem? Say, if the community wants one > more bug fixed, but the company says "we need > a branch now", what happens? > > I don't see any harm to the project by having extra > branches in subversion, but I don't want to assume > it's OK without asking everyone here. > > Thanks, > Adam > > > On 8/14/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I think basicly that what you want is something like: > > > > a branch for a release or a rc, which is also maintained. > > > > I think that's fine with Apache, why not? > > > > In MyFaces we do a branch for *each* release too, but we are > > not maintaining the branches *after* the release (which is bad). > > > > So the work will continue on trunk and if we figure out, that there is > > a bug that stopps also the *released* / *branched* version of T., > > why not apply the *patch* against the branch too. > > > > I prefer that too. > > > > -Matthias > > > > > For some of our internal, non-open source work here at Oracle, > > > we're heavily depending on Trinidad (yay!). The catch is that, > > > at certain points, we need a stable branch to build off of and > > > apply only limited bug fixes so that internal work never gets > > > destabilized. > > > > > > What I'd like to do is create branches in the Subversion repository > > > for Trinidad code, with the following commitments: > > > - No proprietary, non-Apache code will *ever* be checked in to > > > such branches. > > > - No work will happen on these branches that has not *first* > > > been checked into trunk, with the possible exception of deeply > > > hacky bug patches that wouldn't be wanted on a trunk. > > > > > > In other words, this will still be public work, and never even > > > anything that could be construed as a fork in any way. > > > > > > Does this seem reasonable? Is it legit by Apache rules? > > > > > > All the alternatives I can think of are even less legit - e.g., we > > > could make an internal copy of the source code, but that just > > > reduces our exposure to the internal work and makes it less > > > straightforward for us to hew to the true code on the trunk. > > > > > > -- Adam > > > > > > > > > -- > > Matthias Wessendorf > > > > further stuff: > > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf > > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com > > > > -- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
-- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
