In fact, it would be better if we had called M2, M2.x right from the start, kept it as a working main-line, and forked release branches with concrete version number off of it as we went. Something to learn for next time.
On 18/12/2007, Rupert Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ? M2 is a release branch for what went into M2. > > M2.1 is mis-named, its purpose is to act as 'main line' for work on the > Java 0.8 line. It would have been better if we had called it M2.x. > > Don't merge from the main line into the old release branch. That's for bug > fixes to be applied to that release. > > On 18/12/2007, Aidan Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Dec 18, 2007 12:07 PM, Robert Godfrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > PS: those are the two remaining issues to be fixed before we can > > safely > > > > > start M2/trunk merging. > > > > > > > > Hurrah! I'll try to get some time tomorrow to get started on that > > > > process, I'll send patches for the two tests when I've dug them out > > of > > > > qpid-commits. > > > > > > > > > > Given all the work on M2.1 I would really prefer to merge from M2.1 to > > > trunk than from M2 to trunk... otherwise we'll only have to do a > > > second big merge :-( > > > > Well, what's currently M2.1 is misnamed. We should merge from M2.1 to > > M2, rename that branch to something else and cut a new M2.1 which > > includes the multiversion protocol support. We should then merge from > > that. > > > > - Aidan > > > > -- > > aim/y!:aidans42 g:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://aidan.skinner.me.uk/ > > "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." > > -- Hunter S. Thompson > > > >
