Do you want a new 2.0 release? I can't recall offhand if there is/was a particular need or demand for one.
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net> wrote: > Nathan, > > On 4/13/11 12:03 PM, Nathan Bubna wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 4:19 AM, Claude Brisson <cla...@renegat.net> wrote: >>> On 2011-04-13 11:57, Antonio Petrelli wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Claude >>>> >>>> 2011/4/13 Claude Brisson<cla...@renegat.net> >> ... >>> >>> Then I'd vote for the first solution: have tools-2.1 require engine-2.x once >>> it's released. After all, we can backport important changes to tools-2.0.x. >> ... >> >> I agree. At this point, tools is evolving slowly, and what time i do >> have to develop velocity will be largely spent on engine 2. I think >> it is fine to release fixes to Tools in the 2.0.x branch and have 2.1 >> be where we drop support for both Tools 1 config and Engine 1. > > Can you confirm that your expectation is that Tools 2.0.x will have at > least one more release? I was getting ready to make a few changes and I > want to make sure that I commit to the right place. If 2.0.x is > essentially dead, then I'll only commit to trunk and leave 2.0.x alone. > > Thanks, > -chris > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@velocity.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@velocity.apache.org
