Aaron Bannert wrote: > > Let's discuss this a little more, I'm curious what others think. Is > there really a problem now with people committing things that shouldn't > be committed? Take the 1.3 branch for example. > > Lets put this another way. Why would we want to stop anyone from > volunteering > wherever they wanted? >
S'funny, I just posted a reply in response to Bill's commit (moral: no matter how you sort your email, it's never right :) ). And I see that others have done the same. My own POV is that a R-T-C on 2.0 will almost ensure a very slow development environ on that effort. We haven't felt the need to do so with 1.3, so, unless the idea is that: (1) no one will be looking at 2.0 compared to 2.1 and therefore c-t-r is a noop or (2) we don't want a heathly development environ on 2.0. Neither option fills me with happy and warm thoughts :) If 2.1 is truly a sandbox, then 2.0 will be (must be) a heathly effort to continue as it always has. Otherwise the fears that some had regarding the "split" (that 2.0 will basically lay stagnant is that stage that it is) may come true. After all, some people like playing in sandboxes and other like fine-tuning code that people are actually using and depending on. And some like both. (And some poor slobs like neither) -- =========================================================================== 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
