David Blevins wrote: > > > On May 12, 2010, at 3:00 AM, Jean-Louis MONTEIRO wrote: > >> >> >> David Blevins wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>> >> >> Thanks David, as far as i can see, the branch exists. >> I saw in the history, you revert to JPA 1.0. Thanks for that too. > > Still need to roll the version forward in trunk to 3.2 and publish some > snapshots. > >> So, can we push new things in the trunk? > > Definitely. > >> Any inputs regarding merge management are welcome? >> I mean, can we merge (bugfix, ...) in the maintenance branch regularly. >> >>> From my (small) experience (with SVN merges), the more we wait, the more >> it's painful. > > IMO, anything that doesn't break java5 and java ee 5 compatibility module > is fine to add to 3.1.x, new feature or not. Would be nice to keep them > as close as possible, but it can take time to test things out properly in > two branches so I wouldn't say it's any sort of hard rule. If you have > the time/energy, go for it. > > I suspect it will be easy for a while and gradually get harder. > > -David > > > >
OK thanks David. It sounds good to me ;-) Jean-Louis -- View this message in context: http://openejb.979440.n4.nabble.com/Time-for-a-3-2-branch-tp2131789p2196681.html Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
