Andrew C. Oliver wrote: >On Sun, 2002-04-21 at 10:47, Marc wrote: > >>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? >> > >1.5 - we've got major bugs and minor bugs and the big packaging issue >that is not captured in 1.0.2 > >development builds should have formulas enabled... 1.5 should not. I'm >queuing patches that will make major changes to formula support. >Libin's patches for Named ranges break some charting unit tests (no idea >why yet) and I really don't think those should go in a "production" >release. > >1.5 is intended to be a production release. That being the case the >inevitable 1.5.1 should be a production release. Development builds >will start to have things in them that are totally NOT ready for >production (formula stuff especially) and 1.5.1 should not capture those >changes. > >We're only talking about 1 branch. Not two. And only MINOR changes >will happen to the 1.5 branch...bugfixes, etc. (because the dev work >will continue at the HEAD)/ > >Thoughts? > >>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. >> ok, I guess I'm convinced, then, that 1.5, despite its untraditional nomenclature (I think of major releases as n.0 versions), 1.5 is really a major release. That being the case, I strongly suggest that, as soon as we're all on board with your proposal, we get a binding agreement as to what has to be done to get 1.5 out the door, and that we put everything else on hold until 1.5 is released.
And, I hereby rescind my -1 vote. I vote +1 Marc
