On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 18:55 +1300, Simon Kitching wrote: > On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 22:48 +0000, robert burrell donkin wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 18:32 +1300, Simon Kitching wrote: > > > On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 21:46 +0000, robert burrell donkin wrote: > > > > I've cut a branch for any ongoing work needed for JCl1: > > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jakarta/commons/proper/logging/branches/JCL1/ > > > > > > > > future release candidates will be cut from this branch. > > > > > > I think that a JCL 2.x series would best be served by starting with a > > > completely fresh directory anyway; the code will be quite different. > > > > a separate top level directory or another branch? > > With SVN, there's no difference :-)
i meant top level as in proper/commons-logging2 but i think it's clear that the answer to this is no... > > > So perhaps we could instead remove the JCL1 branch, and run JCL1.x from > > > trunk for the moment while JCL2.x is a separate dir? Later we could > > > rename trunk to JCL1 while JCL2 is renamed to "trunk"... > > > > i think i'm happier using a branch for the release: less risk that way > > but feel free to start JCL2 off on a branch. > > > > > Please let me know as I have currently committed the AvalonLogger change > > > (intended for the 1.x series) to trunk only.. > > > > yep (noticed the commit) > > > > not a problem (or at least, an easy problem to sort out). i'll patch the > > release branch. > > It still feels a bit weird to me to have a 1.1 release branch. What > could possibly be committed to trunk that would not be wanted in the 1.1 > branch? What could possibly be committed to the 1.1 branch that would > not be wanted in trunk? > > And if (as I believe) the answer to the above is "nothing", then why > have a branch? Either everything gets committed twice or trunk will get > out-of-date which will just confuse everybody. it's really about control. a release branch is the domain of the release manager and i'd expect to make the majority of the commits. > I guess the only bits might be the kind of "global maven cleanups" that > occasionally occur. anything like that it's probably going to take a while to get the code verified (whether it's named as a release candidate or as an alpha). seems like the release vote will need more time (or will fail from lack of interest). so, i don't think that we'll actually be shipping JCL1.1 for a while yet... - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
