--On Friday, May 13, 2005 9:07 PM +0200 Andr� Malo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Instead of calling it branches/2.1.x, on IRC wrowe suggested going straight to branches/2.2.x, and on further thought I agree.
I don't agree.
Votes on going straight to 2.2.0-alpha?
-0.5 on calling it 2.2.x. I'm seeing it like this:
Once forked off, 2.1.x would be *stabilizing* branch, that finally leads to a 2.2.x branch, when we feel, it's stable (svn mv 2.1.x 2.2.x?). From the 2.1.x branch we tag alpha and beta releases; from *stable* 2.2.x rc and stable release. I think that's exactly the point of the odd/even system - 2.2.0 being a GA version.
Correct.
We should create branches/2.1.x - when we decide that branch is GA, then we rename the directory to 2.2.x and bump the version number inside of there accordingly.
Under no circumstances should we release anything called 2.2.0 until it is GA.
I see (now :-) that we should have already branched 2.1.x the first time we released a 2.1 version.
Per the discussion at ApacheCon, it was said that we would vote on a release that would form the creation of the new branch. However, all of the 2.1.x releases I created were vetoed. -- justin
