I am not a committer, but just to put in my $.02, I totally concur with Timo on this.
In my experience, trunk should always represent the 'latest work' that is likely to have the most enduring lifespan. While there will certainly be maintenance bug fixes going into a 1.x branch that would have to be 'merged up' into 2.0, eventually that would be expected to tail off and you would move to doing the bulk of your development in 2.0 - so that should be the trunk. Trying to use trunk as the maintenance branch and a separate branch for the 'going forward' development means that at some point you will be faced with the painful task of merging/overwriting everything from the 2.0 branch into trunk. No single strategy works for every project or team, of course. But that is my recommendation. Cheers, Mel On 4/19/13 3:47 AM, "Timo Boehme" <timo.boe...@ontochem.com> wrote: >Hi, > >since it is quite clear that we will have API incompatible changes in >2.x vs. 1.x we need to keep a 1.x branch for further bug-fixing/small >improvements also after 2.0. From my point of view the trunk should >reflect the most up-to-date development which means 2.x and 1.x would >have its own branch. Only if we agree that 2.0 is a very long term goal >and we may have quite a number of improvements in 1.x in the mean time >it would be better to keep the trunk for 1.x. > >However as Thomas wrote not all improvements we plan have to land in >2.0, but 2.0 may be a starting point with better basics to start from >and thus 2.0 maybe is not a so long term goal. > >The need for branching will arise with the first API incompatible change >or an improvement we don't want to maintain in 1.x should be integrated. > >For the 2.0 features: >- switch to Java 1.6 >- my main interest is in the parsing part and here I would like to see > the current parsers be replaced by a cleaner approach Maruan has > started with together with parsing on demand; > in 2.0 this parser might not be able to parse all documents we can > handle in 1.x but can be improved later; > this kind of parsing will also require changes and refactoring at the > COS level; defining an API here we can build on should be part of 2.0 > > >Best regards, >Timo > > >Am 18.04.2013 23:32, schrieb Andreas Lehmkuehler: >> Hi, >> >> Am 18.04.2013 22:15, schrieb Maruan Sahyoun: >>> I'd think that we should start scoping out 2.0 - what will be covered >>> under that topic. >> > In addition I would see us doing additional bug fix releases and >> minor enhancements prior >> > to releasing 2.0. My preference would be to branch out 2.0 and keep >> trunk for >> > working on 1.x >> Hmm, we already have a 1.8 branch, which can be used for further bugfix >> releases. Do you want to use the 1.x trunk for a possible 1.9 release? >> >>> as this would be clearer but maybe we should postpone that discussion >>> until >>> we have a better understanding what 2.0 means. >> I don't want to start a discussion about possible changes at this point. >> Whatever we will do, I'm pretty sure that there will be some api changes >> and >> we should use this fact as basis for our discussion if we branch or not. >> >>> Maruan Sahyoun >>> >>> >>> Am 18.04.2013 um 21:11 schrieb Andreas Lehmkuehler <andr...@lehmi.de>: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> what is our next target after releasing 1.8.0 and 1.8.1? >>>> >>>> We already started some discussions about that topic, but I'd like to >>>> have >>>> clarification. Is it time to go for a 2.0 version? If we agree to >>>> that goal, >>>> how should we proceed? Should we branch or simply use the trunk? >>>> >>>> I'd prefer to continue using the trunk. We are still able to release >>>> bugfix versions using the 1.8-branch. Even a new 1.9 feature release >>>> should be possible by branching the 1.8-branch. >>>> >>>> WDYT? >>>> >>>> BR >>>> Andreas Lehmkühler >> >> BR >> Andreas Lehmkühler >> > > >-- > > Timo Boehme > OntoChem GmbH > H.-Damerow-Str. 4 > 06120 Halle/Saale > T: +49 345 4780474 > F: +49 345 4780471 > timo.boe...@ontochem.com > >_____________________________________________________________________ > > OntoChem GmbH > Geschäftsführer: Dr. Lutz Weber > Sitz: Halle / Saale > Registergericht: Stendal > Registernummer: HRB 215461 >_____________________________________________________________________ >
