The alternative is for us to develop SCA Head against a stable (M3) version of SDO?
On 13/07/07, Pete Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The SDO HEAD will contain the ongoing development for the 2.1 spec changes. The branch was created to maintain a stable version as some of the spec changes will cause instability. I think ongoing development should continue in HEAD so we do not need an SCA branch. We just need to ensure that SCA HEAD will compile/run against SDO HEAD. What do you think? Cheers, On 13/07/07, Brady Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello all, > > I understand there is an SDO branch created for the SDO 2.1 spec > compliance changes. The SCA code also needs changes made for the SDO > changes, so can we just make an SCA branch where those changes can be > made. > > -------------------- > Brady Johnson > Lead Software Developer - HydraSCA > Rogue Wave Software - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Pete
-- Pete --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
