I agree - I think we're at the point where a branch is needed. Were there any thoughts on new functionality going into the 3.1 branch as opposed to just bug fixes? Personally I'd rather avoid having to develop to and test new functionality in two different places (I appreciate stuff can be merged from one branch to another, but I imagine this becoming more difficult over time).
Jon On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:24 PM, David Blevins <[email protected]>wrote: > On May 7, 2010, at 1:08 AM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO wrote: > > > > > David, > > > > The more I think about that, the more branching looks like the best > > solution. > > In most cases, i avoid as much as possible branching cause it's painful. > > > > But in our case, it makes a lot of sense (a branch for maintenance > release > > of 3.1.x and the trunk for 3.2 and java 6). > > > > So +1 for branching. > > Going to give this a try today. > > > -David > > > > > > David Blevins wrote: > >> > >> Wondering if it might be time to branch. Branching is always a bit > >> painful, but starting to think we might have gone as far as we can with > >> one active code line. > >> > >> Not proposing anything specific, more just putting it out there for us > to > >> think about. > >> > >> Certainly, if we branched we'd go JPA 2 in the new 3.2 code line and > stay > >> JPA 1 in the current 3.1 code line. As well, we'd put any JCDI > >> integration work in 3.2 as that stuff is Java 6 only. > >> > >> Beyond that, I'm not too sure. > >> > >> Let the brainstorming begin.... :) > >> > >> > >> -David > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > > View this message in context: > http://openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/Time-for-a-3-2-branch-tp2131789p2133836.html > > Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > >
