excellent, marcf
|-----Original Message----- |From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Scott |M Stark |Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 9:51 AM |To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] RE: [jboss-group] Drift between 3.0.1 and 3.1 | | |There is no reason main should be in synch with the 3.0 branch as |it contains changes that apply future versions. Bill has added muliple |invokers. Dain added the enums for the invokers. I didn't merge |the ear scoped loader to main because a more general solution may |be desirable. Etc. | |Having one person managing merging doesn't scale on this size of |codebase. I'm fine with how the versions are being managed by the |developers making the changes. If anyone has questions or concerns |about what has or has not been merged bring them up here. If a |consensus isn't reached through discussion I will make the decision |as I am the release dictator. | |This is the plan: | |A 3.0.1 bug fix release will be made next week off of the 3.0 branch |to bring its stability up. | |A new 3.1 branch will be made off main for the next release and main |will continue on toward 4.0. | |xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |Scott Stark |Chief Technology Officer |JBoss Group, LLC |xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |----- Original Message ----- |From: "David Jencks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |Cc: "JBossGroup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 7:47 AM |Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] RE: [jboss-group] Drift between 3.0.1 and 3.1 | | |> On 2002.06.23 10:09:50 -0400 marc fleury wrote: |> > I agree, |> |> With what? That we got ourselves into a configuration management |nightmare? |> |> > |> > Can we focus on 3.1? and leave 3.0 as is? |> |> The point of my message is that I can't figure out how to determine what |is |> in 3.0.1 but not 3.1 without looking at these 441 changed files |> individually and also determining some way to find and compare |moved files |> (such as the tm) |> |> It is important we put a |> > stable |> > version out, it's got to be 3.1. |> |> Ummm ok, what about 3.0.1? |> |> I notice that the other projects I've seen branch seem to require that |> everyone apply their changes to one branch or the other but not both. |> Periodically one person then merges the branch changes back into main and |> tags everything. Without the tagging step after merge, changes that have |> been applied to both branches confuse merge. Perhaps we should consider |> this for future branches. |> |> david |> | | | | |------------------------------------------------------- |Sponsored by: |ThinkGeek at http://www.ThinkGeek.com/ |_______________________________________________ |Jboss-development mailing list |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development ------------------------------------------------------- Sponsored by: ThinkGeek at http://www.ThinkGeek.com/ _______________________________________________ Jboss-development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
