On 10/17/05, Kenney Westerhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, [ISO-8859-1] Trygve Laugstøl wrote: > > Brett Porter wrote: > > > Here are some areas to think about: > > > - having a 2.1 trunk and 2.0.1 branch (or vice versa, or neither) > > > > I'd prefer for 2.1 as trunk and 2.0.x as a branch. > > > Me too. And 2.0.x always being for ONE version only. Perhaps we could > just tag 2.0.1, 2.0.2 etc, and copy that into a branch when bugfixes are > needed. So, when bugs are discovered in 2.0, we copy the 2.0 tag to > 2.0.1-SNAPSHOT branch, then work on that. When 2.0.1 is released (and > tagged) we rename the 2.0.1-SNAPSHOT branch to 2.0.2-SNAPSHOT. That way > you can more clearly see what version we're currently bugfixing (instead > of 2.0.x).
I think it'll be pretty clear which version we're currently bugfixing, since 2.0.x releases aren't going to be very frequent in practice. Most of the active development will be on the trunk. If we think there's still going to be a lot of active development on 2.0 (rather than 2.1), then we could delay the 2.0.x branch until we feel things have settled down on the 2.0 front. The <version> element in 2.0.x POM would always contain 2.0.[something]-SNAPSHOT, which would then remove the -SNAPSHOT during release (when /tags/2.0.[something] is created), and then increment to 2.0.[something + 1]-SNAPSHOT on the 2.0.x branch. Kind Regards, John Fallows. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
