David Blevins wrote:
On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 09:40:52AM -0700, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Clearly, we need something like this to get organized around the
final push for certification and the 1.0 release, by why not just
branch for the stable, and head is unstable?
The names are just suggestions - "trunk", "head", "unstable",
whatever.
The important thing is that you can easily checkout and build each
tree on its own so we can't have both stable and unstable branches
of modules (e.g. transaction) under trunk.
I think we are going to have a hard enough time managing and merging
between stable/unstable branches of the code in general let alone at
the submodule level. I'd prefer to get used to that before trying it
at the submodule level.
One of the reasons for going with a modular structure in the first place
was to make the totality more manageable while still being able to
develop each module. For small projects I would agree it is probably not
worth it, but most large distributed projects have gone that way: look
at HTTPD + mod_*, Tomcat + commons-*, Maven + plugins, Eclipse +
plugins, ...
The community is asking for subsets of functionality - we should use the
module structure to give it to them rather than waiting for a release at
the global level (especially with the overhead of certification testing).
--
Jeremy
