Hi,
Jumping in late...
marc fleury wrote:
>
> Right JUST DO IT (my way:)
Yep.
Just doing it is the way to go.
If we wait until all developers stop
implementing new code and only fix
bugs, we may wait forever.
> Once we have this out. I would encourage everyone to stop adding stuff
> STARTING NEXT WEEK. Like a "feature freeze" at least long enough to get
> people working on 2.1 BETA.
Fine. I guess this means that we
are approaching the end of the 2.1
series, and getting ready to stabilize
the code in preparation for 2.2.0.
> All new feature are to be moved to the new development branch. Fixes to the
> 2.1 beta to be put in both branches.
Ok. So I'll wait committing the
standalone client UserTransaction
code until 2.3.x, since this is a
new feature.
> PROPOSAL:
> SO STARTING NEXT MONDAY
>
> 2 branches
>
> 2.1 BETA
> 2.3
>
> 2.1 BETA is FEATURE FREEZED as we go to 2.1 FINAL = 2.2. If there are
> really big feature we want to squeeze in do it now.
>
> 2.3 is the development branch, CVS downloadable as is today, even as
> snapshot.
>
> Does this make sense. Any voices against?
Instead of doing 2.1-BETA, 2.1-FINAL
etc., why not just go with a three-
digit version number.
For example, 2.1-BETA has version
number 2.1.0. When we fix the bugs
in 2.1.0, we get 2.1.1. If 2.1.1 is
ok, we release that as 2.2.0,
otherwise a 2.1.2 could be done first.
> I am no cvs guru so clear instruction on how to do this would be very
> welcome
Me too...
Best Regards,
Ole Husgaard.
