You are right. Let's then create a 2.4 branch from 2.3, so some work can
be done. In my case, being very busy, I unfortunately cannot work too
much, but in the very short time I can work on two or three things that
can make it for 2.4.
And obviously, as correctly said many times by Stefano, I would work on
trunk and backport it, as for they very nature they are easy to
backport. And there may be other "tactical" but useful things that can
be done for 2.4.
The only really wrong thing would be adding fixes and new
functionalities to 2.3 or 2.4 or next minor and not to trunk! This
would look like an old story that we "old guys" remember.
Vincenzo
Joachim Draeger wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 21.12.2006, 16:03 +0100 schrieb Vincenzo Gianferrari
Pini:
- New Features into Trunk
- Bugfixes into the Release Branch of 2.3
- ported Features of Trunk that should be incorporated into the 2.3 codebase
should be done into a new branch with the name 2.4
That way everything is clean, everyone looking at the repository gets an idea
of how the project is structured.
Agree, but at the same time having three branches is hard to mantain (we
know that from the past history of James), so what I think is worth is
to all of us be more *flexible and pragmatic*.
And we should be open for *compromises*. It just seems that James PMC
and community are unable to make widely accepted decisions at the moment
and it seems that this state will continue.
Crucial votes, maybe even with vetos, will bring us nothing. Discussion
will just come up again and prevent us from moving forward.
Having three branches will be better than discussing for ever and just
doing nothing.
There is a group that doesn't want to work on next minor. Not because it
is not a desirable goal. They want to concentrate on new features in
trunk and bugfixes for 2.3. I think this won't change.
Some think that we need a bugfix only branch of 2.3 to be able to
release it at any time. A backported feature probably needs more time to
test.
Even if it may be cumbersome and inconvenient: The three branches
strategy may be the only possible compromise to enable everyone to
work.
Of course working on a common goal would be much better. But this way is
better than doing nothing.
I don't care whether 2.3 based release will use CTR or RTC. But I think
setting up a roadmap is needed to make the community to understand the
goal. It will also make it easier for people to get involved.
Joachim
P.S.: I announced a vote for today. Sorry, I don't think we are that far
right now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
