Sam Ruby wrote:
Sounds great. Although, since we depend heavily on Avalon, and they went and rewrote their API, we'd be getting Gump failures on 2.1 for some time... do you think it's worth tagging the branch in we use in Avalon, or is there a better way to support this?It is quite possible for a project to have multiple gump descriptors, and for some or all of them to specify a tag.
I believe 2.1 is just a stabilization, although others may want to do more with it. Haven't really heard much though... largely just bug fixing.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.
--
Serge Knystautas
Loki Technologies
http://www.lokitech.com/
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
