Andrew C. Oliver wrote: >Hi All and especially those of you who ride Kangaroos to work everyday, > >It occurs to me that some of the things I'm about to do are heavily >HSSF-2.0 oriented and yet I'm not yet sure we'll be ready for 1.5. >Everytime I think we're RealClose(tm) a Gigantic moth sized anywhere >from little to gigantic flies into the works and gums them all up. So >"to branch or not to branch" that is the question! > >Secondly, after we release 1.5, we'll undoubtedly have a 1.5.1 or >something of the such to capture bug fixes/etc. So the question before >you: > >do we create a branch for 1.5 and continue all bug fixes there while >continuing further development on the head. > >I vote +1 - if Glen doesn't have the necessary CVS-foo I'll fake it. ;-) > >Later votes or discussions can determine the status of particular pieces >of code. I say all formula related stuff goes in the head and not in >1.5. > >-Andy > There are certain practices that I feel must be justified to the satisfaction of everyone actively on a project -- deliberately violating encapsulation is one example. Branching is another. It can be (and usually is) a collossal headache and it is something that I will grudgingly admit *might* be an acceptable practice after a major release, to allow for bug fixes while new development continues.
This does not sound like such a case. So, I vote -1. I can be persuaded by a convincing argument to retract that vote. Such an argument should include a restatement of our 1.5 objectives and why 1.5 is being treated as if it were a major release, and why the new work cannot be performed while 1.5 bug fixes are applied. Also, how about an explanation of what that new work is? Not trying to be a PITA (when it comes naturally, there's no need to *try*), but this is a rather serious action we're contemplating, and I cannot endorse it, indeed, I must oppose it, absent serious discussion.
