Scenario II sounds like the way to go. To me it's clear that we should focus on the trunk. This thread http://markmail.org/message/qqkcedclrbfbkvpc sums up the current state of trunk.
> From: Tammo van Lessen <tvanles...@gmail.com> > Date: Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:22 AM > Subject: ODE dev-branches > To: dev@ode.apache.org > > > Hi ODE devs, > > on the IRC channel, we had in interesting discussion yesterday about the > current branch situation and I (have been :)) volunteered to raise this > issue here. Although /trunk has been communicated to be the successor of > the 1.x branch, development still goes on on 1.x so that we basically > have two development branches currently. This leads to the predicament > that each fix has to be created, reviewed and committed twice and makes > it difficult to track whether both branches are sync (i.e. all bug fixes > have been ported to the respective other branch. Rafal and I think that > we don't really have the resources to maintain two development branches > and we should drop one. The important question actually is, which one. > > Scenario I: Discontinue and drop trunk and continue development 1.x > Scenario II: Discontinue 1.x and move on with trunk > > I personally would really regret choosing Scenario I, since trunk has > couple of great new feature such as the new IL, OModel versioning, > extension activities, process contexts, etc., and that with good cause. > Not to mention the hard work that has been put into that branch. So it's > rather not an option. > > Scenario II has IMHO less of such negative impact. We will still need to > maintain the 1.x branch for bug fixes of running 1.x instances, so we're > not dropping something, however, all new features should go into > trunk. In addition, it's rather impossible to stabilize and improve > trunk with respect to performance etc. if it is not released. > > My suggestion would be to go for II, prepare a 1.3.4 and 2.0-beta2 > release, declare 1.x to be a dead-end and move on with development on > trunk. > > What do you think? > > Cheers, > Tammo > >
