Well, I think it will not be a lot of work or a difficult task if we all co-operated to work on it. I agree with what you and David said, and IMHO if this way is th right way to go so lets do it, as long as it will be for the benefit of the project.
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 6:06 PM, Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jun 29, 2008, at 8:54 PM, David Blevins wrote: > >> Good to see some feedback. There's a potential flaw in the question >> "3.0.1 or 3.1", the "or" part. I suppose *and* is an option too. > > Right. Definitely good to discuss. My read > >> >> >> We could release a 3.0.1 and 3.1 beta x. 3.0.x would be stable, no new >> EJB 3.1 apis, 3.1 beta x for the people who want to play >> >> Pros: >> - Gives users more choice > > - Gives developers more freedom. 3.1 development would have more freedom > to break existing 3.0 api's, > - The 3.1 spec is still changing. Possible that a new feature will be > implemented, and then removed from the spec... Or api's may be changed in > non-backward compatible manner. > - The 3.1 dev branch would not not need to be compliant with the 3.0 spec. > At the moment, trunk is the only means of delivering 3.0 fixes. So there are > some expectations that trunk will be consumable as a 3.0 compliant > implementation. > >> >> Cons: >> - Could create a lot of work > > Right. Maybe not a *lot*, but definitely more work. Maintaining multiple > branches, merging fixes, etc can be difficult. > > I did think about this issue, earlier. My read was the community was working > pretty well with trunk as the development/maintenance branch and didn't, > yet, need the additional overhead of maintaining multiple branches. > > --kevan > > -- Thanks - Mohammad Nour
