+1 on the strategy that Jean-Louis outlined. -M
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO <[email protected]> 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. > > Jean-Louis > > > > 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. > -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
