Summary of the vote: +1: 8 0: 0 (Matt altered his vote) -1: 0
+1 votes: Andrew Robinson Grant Smith Martin Marinschek Scott O'Bryan Jeanne Waldman Matt Cooper Gary Kind Simon Lessard Jeanne, Since you handled the last 1.2.4 trunk creation and merge, could you chime in with how this would be best handled? I was thinking of the following: 1) update the WIKI with the new rule that committers are responsible for maintaining their changes in both the trunk and the 1.2 trunk. 2) when 1.2.4 is released: 2a) tag the trunk (1.0.5) to label a cut off point 2b) branch trunk_1.2.x from the 1.2.4 branch 3) perform "ubermerge" from 1.0.5 inception to the tag 4) inform committers that they must apply any trunk changes post-tag to the 1.2 trunk and any changes going forward to both if applicable Opinions? On 11/15/07, Andrew Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Vote: > Creation of https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad/trunk_1.2.x/ > > Justification: > Once again trinidad lacking a trunk for 1.2 is giving me heartburn. > I have been making changes to 1.0.5 and to be nice, I wanted to put > them into 1.2 as well, but of course there is no home for 1.2.5 yet. > Unlike the last time this was brought up, we now have an existing > example as an argument to use as a standard: > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/core/trunk_1.2.x/ > > If it is good enough for core, should it not also be good enough for trinidad? > > Since "https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad/trunk/"; would > remain untouched, this should remove any debates over JSF not being > supported. > > Benefits: > 1) 1.2 snapshots possible with continuum > 2) 1.2 is kept up to date > 3) easier merge during 1.2 release time and hopefully as a result a > more stable product > > -Andrew >
