giacomo a écrit :
>
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2001, Donald Ball wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, giacomo wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 for everything. But how about docs? Till when should we work on it? Sunday
>(MEST)?
> > >
> > > I'd propose to work on the docs from *NOW* on until Beta 2 (let's say
> > > for about a month or so).
> > >
> > > I still havn't heard much about the branching proposal from the rest of
> > > the commiters. IIRC only Donald and Carsten have given their oppinions
> > > and they are oppositional.
> >
> > as long as we agree to _do_ bug fixes on 2.0 and not just leave it hanging
> > once 2.1 work gets underway, i'm fine with the branch.
>
> I want to make this clear once again. I don't intend to push a 2.1
> branch. I'd only want to have a container to put things into on which
> we'll decide that it will not make it into the 2.0 release. To undeline
> this we can make the HEAD branch be 2.0 and the side branch the 2.1. I
> have no problems with it. I've only thought that it would be more
> naturally to have the HEAD be 2.1 and the side branch 2.0.
>
> Giacomo
>
+1 for branching. IMO, if branching is used as a container for new
features, we should keep the 2.0 source tree in the main branch. This
will allow average users to get 2.0 sources with a simple checkout of
xml-cocoon2 while advanced users will get the "bleeding edge"
2.1-experimental branch which will be merged to the HEAD when 2.0 is
considered stable and 2.1 development really starts.
Having a separate branch for 2.1 can also refrain developpers of adding
new features too early and concentrate on stabilizing 2.0 :)
--
Sylvain Wallez
Anyware Technologies - http://www.anyware-tech.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
