-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jacek Laskowski wrote: > > -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.
- From past experience, though, I can tell you that there *will* be requests for 'the 1.2 release.' People are endlessly inventive, and trying to figure out why they do things will keep you very busy for a very long time. Maybe '1.2-dead' or '1.2-aborted' or '1.2-abandoned'? - -- #ken P-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRHHJH5rNPMCpn3XdAQIinAQAygNtwKDH/rcsMMTU8Y6qDGaqNT0/TotH v02JSuZWLVcjcso3DjAfxtT6y3d+oXvGmWtwVJjwhmU7cTXl0U5myHMGIge6K1jf r9emGMdm4Qibh6jYOFSBwm2Wrd7aLb7iIbeQz6j8ueQ0ARfMZyJ2uU74GCVGA8PM 5/xwPTpbmGQ= =7Fum -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
