On Mon, 28 May 2001, Donald Ball wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2001, Giacomo Pati wrote:
>
> > > Although we can't start with 2.1 before we released 2.0 it is easier to
> > > maintain, so I vote +1 for c).
> >
> > Why can't we start with 2.1 on the main branch and have the beta in a
> > side branch? If we aggree that the functionality of the beta1 is what
> > will be in the final release I don't see any problems? Bugfixes can be
> > joined into the main branch from time to time (if I understand CVS
> > correctly).
>
> i think we should strongly avoid doing any development on 2.1 until we've
> released 2.0 final and put in some hours into docs and helping users.
I'm not sure on this. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to force 2.1
development and, yes, we need to write docs sooner that later. But from
now on we need to decide for every single patch/contribution/donnation
if it will make it into 2.0 or 2.1. And we already have such things like
the SOAP server/client service from Michael Homeijer, like the
StreamGenerator contributed today from Kinga Dziembowski.
Sure we can add many more components and functionality but this way
we'll never reach a stable 2.0 version soon. That's why I've proposed to
branch the 2.0 from the 2.1. Can you agree with that?
Giacomo
>
> - donald
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
