On Sat, 12 Oct 2002, Jim Jagielski wrote: > [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.
I am less concerned about *if* we should do a 2.1 branch, and more concerned with *how* it is being done. In the message above, I don't think you are advocating a 2.1 branch. It sounds like you believe that we should take the time to finish 2.0 before moving on. Am I right in interpreting it that way? Ryan _______________________________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] 550 Jean St Oakland CA 94610 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
