+1 for 2.1 as HEAD and 2.0 as side-branch.
Thanks,
dims
--- Martin Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 06:10:01PM +0200, giacomo wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I'm +1 for 2.1 being HEAD and 2.0 being side branch, it's similar approach
> that Xfree is using as I remember and it's also the approach cvs itself is
> promoting..., I'm also +1 for forking the 2.0 immediately when going beta
>
> >
> > Giacomo
> >
>
> martin
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Only dead fish swims with a stream"
> gpg_key_available: http://globales.cz/~mman/martin.man.gpg
> gpg_key_fingerprint: 2CC0 4AF6 92DA 5CBF 5F09 7BCB 6202 7024 6E06 0223
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
=====
Davanum Srinivas, JNI-FAQ Manager
http://www.jGuru.com/faq/JNI
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
