Noel J. Bergman wrote: >> My philosophy on source control assumes the head is the next >> release, as it is what's built every night. > > Well, now that IS an issue. And points to a reason for a separate > CVS module, or at least an inquiry to Sam Ruby. Because for a while > both v2.1+ and v3.0 will develop in parallel. If v2.1 is a branch, I > don't know what GUMP does about building both the v2.1 branch AND the > v3.0 HEAD. > > So I'm going to cc Sam Ruby on this, since we'd want GUMP to build > both v2.1 and v3 until we "shut down" v2.1, and therefore Sam may > have some suggestions based upon GUMP's needs.
It is quite possible for a project to have multiple gump descriptors, and for some or all of them to specify a tag. My personal opinion closely matches Matthew's. If you want to stabilize development of 2.1, and encourage development of 3.0, then name 2.1 a branch. If you want to encourage development of two divergent code bases, then create two CVS trees. Either way, this is a decision that the James developers are free to make. - Sam Ruby -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
