On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Ian MacLean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maybe I'm missing somthing but I'm not convinced by the 'branches > are bad' argument. Is there some published documentation that says > that this is so ?
Let's say that branches are great if you know enough about CVS are and can deal with them. If you don't, well, they aren't that bad. Just make sure they don't live for too long. The major problem is merging changes from one branch to another. If a branch is only short lived, this is no big deal. > Stefan do you know what the Ant/Apache policy on this is ? There is no Apache policy. Different projects are doing very different things. The process for Ant is essentially to create a branch with the first beta. Development for the release happen on the branch, new development goes on on the main branch. It works, but the longer the beta period the more pain is involved. For more details on Ant's process, see <http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs/ant/ReleaseInstructions?rev=HEAD>. Stefan ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/ _______________________________________________ nant-developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
