[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In all of these cases, there was a developer or three, who created a CVS > tree either in their home directories, or in the main CVS area. They made > the major changes that they wanted to see made, and then they announced > the changes to the list, and invited people to help them make the projects > better. >
Except for the fact that in all the above cases, the branch being "deviated" from was a solid, robust and reliable codebase. It was *time* to start a new branch, knowing that the current codebase was, at a very deep level, very robust and "baked". Is 2.0? *That* is my only concern regarding a 2.1 branch. It leaves 2.0 in a not-quite-there state. It's the idea that 2.0 is "dropped" so work can progress on 2.1. PS: I don't see this as another Shambhala situation, by the way. -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
