This makes sense to me, unless there are features on the trunk that absolutely should not be in 1.5. This seems to be a far more manageable way to handle 1.5 - much less error prone, and much less time consuming.
Rich On 12/10/09 8:55 AM, "Keller, Rainer H." <kel...@ornl.gov> wrote: > > WHAT: Branch (again) for v1.5 > > WHY: Heavy divergence of trunk vs. v1.5 with few associated CMR's > > WHERE: v1.5 > > WHEN: Tuesday, Dec. 15th 2009 after the teleconference > > TIMEOUT: Dec. 15th, 2009 > > > More Details > ------------ > > With v1.4 finally being out in the wild, we'd like to advance on the feature > release v1.5. > > There have been some quite radical changes on the trunk recently that make the > tracking of divergence vs. v1.5 needlessly hard (please see the overview of > action items patches if we do not follow this RFC). Paired with this, most > developers have not been filing v1.5 CMR's; someone would need to chase down > everything that has happened on the trunk and "encourage" developers to then > file relevant CMRs. > > Re-branching will likely cause some "I told you so"'s. We tip our hats to > acknowledge that you were right. :-) > > We hope that re-branching, paired with the new automatically-create-CMRs-via- > SVN-commit-messages feature will help keep a new v1.5 branch in much better > shape. > > The most relevant question for the discussion would seem to be: is there > anything on the trunk that is not intended for v1.5? Let's discuss next > Tuesday. > > Regardless of whether we re-branch or not, we'd like to ask all to ramp up > v1.5 MTT-testing, possibly even by adding other test applications. > > With best regards, > Jeff and Rainer
