Kevin Dangoor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It's definitely a good idea to define where 1.1 development will happen. > > If there isn't already 2.0 code on the trunk, I'd recommend using the > trunk for 1.1 and then create a branch for the more experimental 2.0. > > Kevin
I agree... But the trunk has more disruptive and aggressive changes than what was proposed... Maybe it is better to fork a 2.0 from trunk and a 1.1 from 1.0, merging the things from the trunk / 2.0 branch into 1.1 (aka backport)... My main concern is with the stability of what we called stable code :-) And the introduction of toscawidgets, genshi by default, sqlalchemy, etc. are not a minor change IMVHO. -- Jorge Godoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears Trunk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears-trunk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
