Hi Jacques, Apologies if I've misunderstood your meaning, but I don't think we should rush to create a 23.xx branch.
Following such a large refactor, we are likely to find issues in our use of groovy scripts over the coming weeks. If we go ahead and create a new 23.xx branch from trunk too soon we will have to fix those groovy script issues in trunk and the new branch - increasing the amount of work needed. I agree that we want to get a 23.xx branch in place once we are happy that the groovy script refactor work has completed and had a chance to have a few fixes applied. Thanks, Dan. On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 at 16:08, Jacques Le Roux <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: > Le 03/05/2023 à 09:45, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : > > On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 9:17 AM Daniel Watford <d...@foomoo.co.uk> wrote: > > [...] > >> I'll ask one more question (and then run for cover!): Rather than carry > out > >> this work twice. What if we abandon the 22.01 release and instead make > a > >> new release branch (23.xx) soon after moving the Groovy sources? > >> > > Yes, we could do this. Abandon 22.01, perform the refactoring, create > > a new release branch, stabilize (we could consider a shorter > > stabilization period). > > We could also extend our support (mostly for security vulnerability > > fixes) to 18.12, at least until 1 or 2 releases have been published > > out of the new branch. > > > > Jacopo > > Hi, > > In relation with [OFBIZ-12813] Refactor groovy folder structure and add > package declaration > > As soon as a groovy file is modified, and especially moved, in trunk > (framework is done, plugins is waiting), it will be more hand work to > backport. > So I think we should indeed quickly think about creating a 23.xx (23.09?) > release branch. Else if will be soon a nightmare to backport fixes. > > Jacques > > > -- Daniel Watford
