Sander Striker wrote: > > If the trees are so in sync that the same patch applies it's trivial > to do the backports. > > The backport issue will still stay FWIW. If not now, it will come > at the time we have 2.0 and 2.2 out there, and trunk is at 2.3-dev. > It's not like we can drop support for 2.0 then. > > Well, it would let people continue to have a place where they can > develop the larger features/refactoring jobs. That's indeed only > a handful of people, but at the same time a group of people who > do a lot of work. >
I submit that we can't have it both ways, and expect 2 trees to be both "easily" in sync and yet one where major refactoring is taking place... Look at the proxy diffs between 2.0 and 2.1 as an example. I think our goal should be in getting 2.2 out, rather than creating yet another branch, which would result in 3 "versions" of 2.x being in active development. Will branching 2.1 help that? Maybe the large refactoring place should be branch instead? -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "There 10 types of people: those who read binary and everyone else."
