On Sat, 2003-08-16 at 08:15, Matt Raible wrote: > 1. Rename branch to displaytag2 - I believe this is the name we agreed > upon. > 3. Get a release out with the display2 branch. What do we version it > as? 2.0? 1.1? Do we continue supporting the "display" 0.8.5 branch or > just drop it? The Hibernate team keeps supporting it's 1.x branch - > this might be a good idea.
CVS seems to function best if the main trunk, including the head, is the line of active development towards the future. Existing releases should be Versioned/Tagged in cvs. If a prior release, eg the 0.8.5 release, needs fixing then a branch is created from the tag and a fex generated. This can be merged into the main trunk if needed. I recommend maintaining the 0.8.5 release (and keeping it available) for sometime. This is closest to the code that is in most widespread use. Or at least that is my assumption. > > What do you guys think about trimming the list of developers? They > don't seem to be contributing - but is it rude to remove CVS access? > > Basically, I'm proposing we remove the following developers: > > Brad Smith > Gerhard Fr�hlich > Jay Paulsen > Tim Golden > Scott N. Smith > I can speak only for myself. Matt is correct I have not been contributing much at all. I was waiting for some decision regarding the two alternate forks on displaytag. I chose not to vote since I did not have the time to closely look at the two alternatives. But my continued role as a contributor is up to the rest of the group. Brad -- Brad Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
