On 1/28/07, Alberto Valverde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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) >
ok that makes sense although TW is a nice addition, but so is SA ... >> 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 1.1from > the > 1.0bX milestones... > well that's what the blank is supposed to mean > 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. > well yes it's just that I don't want to close stuff just based on my opinion practically all those tickets have a question at the end by me asking for a second opinion. now if everyone is ok with me closing tickets based on my view I'll reduce that by a lot. 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. > yup indeed. > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
