ok... thanks for the info. On 17/10/14 15:51, "Michael Marth" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Hi Angela, > >you are totally correct with your impression that we keep the 1.0 branch >for production issues or improvements that help debugging those. >The TarMK cold standby is a bit of a border case of that (or you could >say: an exception). There are quite a number of Oak users that consider >TarMK not production-ready without any failover capability. Hence, the >absence of this feature hinders adoption. >Additionally, the overall risk adding this feature to the 1.0 branch is >very contained and minimal as it is developed in a way that the changes >to oak-core are minimal (³normal² usage without the stand by feature is >not affected). So, I think the benefits of adding this feature to 1.0 >branch outweigh the associated risks. >But, in my view this is an exception and I do not see another feature >that we should add to 1.0 branch, but rather have additional features in >1.2/trunk only. > >Cheers >Michael > > >On 17 Oct 2014, at 15:36, Angela Schreiber <[email protected]> wrote: > >> hi alex >> >> i somehow had the impression that the 1.0 branch is just >> for fixes... does it really make sense to also merge >> new features into the branch? >> >> and doesn't this somehow defeat the purpose of keeping >> 1.0 stable while developing new stuff in the 'unstable' >> 1.1 branch aka trunk? >> >> kind regards >> angela >> >> On 17/10/14 14:49, "Alex Parvulescu" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'm going through a large merge from trunk to 1.0 (the tarmk cold >>>standy). >>> I already finished merging everything but it was a really convoluted >>> process so some of you may still experience some failures, things that >>>I >>> might have messed up/forgot. >>> >>> If you happen to notice anything off, please let me know so I can fix >>>it. >>> >>> thanks and sorry for the noise, >>> alex >> >
