From: "Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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.
AFAIK branching for a release is common practice, so that bugfixes can go in
that branch.
So I'm +1.
I'd add that I would like to see this become a resolution, and part of the
development rules.
Version is: X.x.f
X = major version. usually at apache it means complete refactoring
x = minor version. builds new functionality in the same X architecture
f = only bugfixes.
X and x are tho only *real* releases with new functionality.
Each time X and x get released, a new branch is created for bugfixes.
f versions are rolled out as needed by the severity of the bugs fixed, but
will not contain new functionality.
So, how does this look?
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
