On Jan 28, 2007, at 1:16 AM, Jorge Vargas wrote: > On 1/27/07, Alberto Valverde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'll try to be more explicit now in order to avoid confusion. The > three points I'd like to stress out are: > > * The trunk is 1.1 and 1.1 is the trunk > > good how about http://trac.turbogears.org/browser/branches/ > 1.1_package_sep_exp?
That branch is exactly the reason I want to make clear what the roadmap is. :) > > * 1.0 is featured-freezed and should only incorporate bugfixes > > shall we add a post commit hook? > http://trac.edgewall.org/browser/trunk/contrib/trac-post-commit-hook Nah, I don't think we need this extra mechanization for the moment.... Sometimes I like to write nice messages when closing tickets myself ;) > * Experiments with 2.0 can start in a separate branch, however, I > think 1.1 must get some shape before this can happen... at least 1.1 > must be ported to use CP3 > > agree 2.0 shouldn't be branched in a long time from now, > > > is there anything left on trunk that doesn't belongs to 1.1? are > those > > feature worth the wasted time doing two commits? > > The only thing in trunk that doesn't belong in 1.1 are the widgets, > which should be copied from 1.0 (*not* TW, TW is for 2.0) because the > widgets in the trunk are broken (I know... I broke them ;). > > um I got confused I though you said TW could be in 1.1 if we get > genshi. 1.1 should be compatible with 1.0 as much as possible.... TW introduces some API changes in the widgets and would break existing apps if they replace TG widgets now. However, anyone who wants to use genshi with widgets or take advantage of what TW provides can still use them as a "non-official-yet" component (just as some of us are using SA/Genshi with 1.0) > > >> I'd also advise to take the time to keep a 1.1 branch in sync with > >> 1.1 (trunk) > > huh? you mean 2.0 trunk? or you mean branch 1.1 of trunk and not 1.0 > > Exactlly, I mean "branch 1.1 from trunk" when we decide to start > stabilizing it for a release (like we did with 1.0). I wouldn't do > this now because there's work pending for the 1.1 milestone and > making a branch now will force us to keep trunk and 1.1 in sync *and* > merge bugfixes from 1.0 into both (phew, I'd have to write yet > another script to do this, 3 separate workingenvs and 3 times the > trouble....) I'd prefer to branch 1.1 for stabilization once we've > moved to CP3 and we implement paste.deploy's interface to build WSGI > apps. > > yup I'll get some time next week to categorize tickets again. > Great :) I'm thinking that maybe we need a new category called "uncategorized" (sic) which should gather those that I batch-moved to 1.1 from the 1.0bX milestones... Many of those tickets are completely rusty or invalid and are there because no one has yet taken a moment to close them.... valid tickets from there could then begin to move to their apropiate milestone. I'm saying this because it's hard to keep track of the status of a milestone when it has 120 tickets, where X% of them are just making up bulk. Alberto --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
