+1 for copy of 1.1 to trunk.
I'm +0 with oldtrunk but...
On May 21, 2006, at 11:38 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:
On 5/22/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would like to make the following changes to the dev tree for
Geronimo. Assuming there is
concurrence and no objections I would like to:
move geronimo/trunk to geronimo/branches/oldtrunk
+1 for the idea of establishing a fresh trunk out of 1.1 branch, but
-1 for the name - oldtrunk.
I simply think it doesn't convey any meaning - oldtrunk or to put it
straight - it won't very soon. We all know what it means/contains now,
but what about the coming months? I think at some point we forget what
it was about. Having said this, I think we should either set a
timeframe before it gets dropped or apply a better name, e.g.
geronimo/branches/1.2.
...after some time of thinking...
Yeah, why couldn't it be named - 1.2? Since it's in branches and noone
will work in it it doesn't impose any threat to our thinking it's
active or so. It should not hurt our community either. Some branches
are active and finish with something concrete whereas some not. If
there're some brave souls who will want to spend some time polishing
it out (for some unknown purposes) that's their choice.
I think this would be kind of misleading. How about 1.2-dead to
indicate that we don't plan to release it?
thanks
david jencks
Matt
Jacek
--
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.laskowski.net.pl
