Re: Geronimo 2.0

[Kresten Krab Thorup (Trifork)]

I think that doing new development on the HEAD is the way to go, i.e. 2.0 development should happen here. Then what goes on the 1.x branch (es) is maintenance and bug fixing. This will certainly serve to stabilize (and perhaps even stall) development on 1.x; but that is not a bad thing. Users will experience that 1.x releases are "more compatible" in many ways because all the creative big changes happen elsewhere.

Kresten Krab Thorup
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


On Jan 6, 2006, at 1:28 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Bruce Snyder wrote, On 1/5/2006 4:26 PM:

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

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.).

work. What I mean to say is that any new innovations being committed

to work on 2.x.

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

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

work.

code then proper branching and tagging should occur to facilitate that

Good point.  What do others think?


Regards,
Alan


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDvbmY1xC6qnMLUpYRAsEZAJ4hKUKXBCTxkTQfPMXGOr3w1LswAQCbBtpt
0ThTQUdCzTdCaaapV71OgZ8=
=L4zh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part