Bruce Snyder wrote:
On 1/5/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How do we want to stage this effort in terms of SVN organization? When
should we cut a 2.0 development branch?
I suppose that the JEE 5 work would be best suited to a 2.0 branch.
That means that there is a potential to have to do a lot of double
work. What I mean to say is that any new innovations being committed
to the HEAD will need to be refactored and committed to the 2.0
branch. And this work will increase more with the addition of more
branches (e.g., 1.1, 1.2, etc.).
You touched on the concern that I had. I'm thinking that once we cut
this, there will be no further work on 1.x, because everyone will want
to work on 2.x.
Then we should probably consider making a decision that the HEAD
should contain 2.x work only. If any fixes need to be done to the 1.x
code then proper branching and tagging should occur to facilitate that
work.
I agree we don't want too many branches.
Will fixes for the 1.0.1 release (hopefully we can get out in a few
weeks) be committed to the 1.0 branch and then we create another tag for
the 1.0.1 release?
My thoughts..
Do we have any guesstimates on when we would have JEE 5 development
completed?
How long it will be before we can deliver a release with some
innovations in it, since we previously agreed we want to release
frequently?
If this is going to be a while then we should discuss the work that is
planned for the near future and whether there are enhancements that can
be delivered in a releases before JEE 5, and if so, how that could be
managed.
Could some of the planned enhancements impact the stability of head
development and therefore should be done in a branch? E.G. would we have
stability problems doing JEE 5 development, re-arch of security, maven 1
to maven 2 migration, xbean support, corba impl etc. all in head?
John
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)[EMAIL
PROTECTED]&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
Apache Geronimo (http://geronimo.apache.org/)
