Any M4 should be based on HEAD. The pre-sdo21 branch exists here https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/tuscany/branches/sdo-cpp-pre2.1and will get bug fixes applied on request. The main user of this is the PHP SDO-SCA group who need fixes to SDO but not the instability as we move forward towards a 2.1 compatible version. I do not forsee a release being built from the branch.
I'm reluctant to create a branch if we can do without it. As I say the SDO branch is there to support a group who are actively using the code. I think the stable SCA is M3. If someone needs fixes in M3 but does not want to use the HEAD version then we may need to consider a maintenance branch. On 13/07/07, David Haney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So SDO HEAD and SCA HEAD will contain changes related to moving the SDO implementation towards compliance with SDO 2.1? And SDO will create a branch (PRE-SDO21 or something similar) from the current code base that represents the stable pre-SDO 2.1 work? This sounds good to me. Will there be ongoing work on the PRE-SDO21 branch (bug fixes, enhancements etc...)? If so, do we need a stable SCA branch that builds against the PRE-SDO21 branch that can take advantage of those changes, or is it intended just for stand-alone SDO work? I guess part of my question is whether the M4 release of either SDO or SCA will be based on the PRE-SDO21 branch, or whether both will be coming from HEAD. Thanks. David. > -----Original Message----- > From: Pete Robbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 8:45 AM > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org > Subject: Re: [SCA Native] Can we make an SCA branch for SDO 2.1 spec > changes > > 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
-- Pete --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
