On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Simon Laws wrote: > > > > > snip.... > > > > > > > > > I prefer a branch to make it clear that all in the community can work > > > > in > > > > it, to make it clear that it's accepted by the project, that it's > > > > buildable > > > > etc, instead of having work buried in the middle of a sandbox > together > > > > with > > > > obsolete or broken stuff, with an unclear status. > > > > > > > > > > > So you mean a branch for 2.0 (you did say this in your previous post > and > > > my > > > eyes skipped over it) and trunk would remain as 1.x ? > > > > > > Simon > > > > > > > > It doesn't really make a difference for me: just 2 folders, one for 1.x > > one for 2.0, and just make clear which one is which and what's its > purpose. > > > > I'm fine with whatever option people prefer: trunk for 2.0 and > > branches/1.x or trunk for 1.x and branches/2.0, or foo/2.0, > sandbox/2.0, > > whatever keeps our community happy. > > > > -- > > Jean-Sebastien > > > > Given the amount of activity we have going on in trunk at the moment, I > would support 1.x remaining as trunk and cutting a branch to allow for > more > innovative (read breaking) development in a 2.0 code stream. > > Simon > It sounds like I (and a lot of the other committers) are going to be quite busy developing the current trunk for the next couple of months and that will make it difficult to participate fully in what happens in a parallel branch. Can this new work really not happen in trunk? Whats changed to make all the comments at the bottom of [1] no longer relevant? ...ant [1] http://apache.markmail.org/message/7ksuvizroitpafnp
