Agreed. Seems 1.x is the best fit then. I'll set that up once the 1.5
release is final.
James Strachan wrote:
I guess we only need 1 branch though, however many releases we end up
doing from the 1.x branch
2008/10/29 Jonathan Anstey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Yeah, if we put out the next 1.x release as 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, etc. I'd be fine
with that. I think I was just trying to minimize the number of possible 1.x
releases we could put out. For example, I didn't want this to occur: Camel
1.5.1, 1.5.2, 1.5.3, 1.6.0, 1.6.1, etc etc etc etc :)
James Strachan wrote:
Am liking 1.x for the same reasons as Willem now :)
2008/10/29 Willem Jiang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I perfer to use camel-1.x , since we could release camel 1.5.x or camel
1.6
from this branch.
If we don't want to release camel 1.6 or camel 1.7, we could use
camel-1.5
as the branch name.
Just my two cents.
Willem/
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Jonathan Anstey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Now that the 1.5 release is pretty much complete I'm thinking of setting
up
a branch so we can start hacking on 2.0 stuff more freely. I guess there
are
several options on names
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/activemq/camel/branches/camel-1.5
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/activemq/camel/branches/camel-1.5.x
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/activemq/camel/branches/camel-1.x
I prefer camel-1.5 since it follows ActiveMQ's branching convention -
does
anybody else have a preference?
I'm also going to set up http://www.orcaware.com/svn/wiki/Svnmerge.py on
that branch so we can have nice merge tracking between trunk and the
branch.
Cheers,
Jon
