ant elder wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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 ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
+1 that makes sense to me
ant elder wrote:
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
What's changed is the design discussions that have recently popped up on
the list (I gave 9 examples) [2], which IMO will require concrete work
including breaking changes, and I think we need a place for that kind of
work to happen without breaking the stability of the current code base
in trunk.
The earlier email you referenced [1] also said this:
====
Many of the items suggested for 2.0 have previously been the subject of
discussions that have not been easy to close. Until we have agreement on
how to approach these things, I think it's better for 2.0 development to
happen in an "investigative" branch. Doing this will allow us to try
different approaches and see which we prefer, without causing a lot of
churn to the trunk.
====
That's consistent with my view, and I'm looking for the right Subversion
folder to make progress on the 9 mentioned items, hoping that it'll help
the community discuss and reach consensus based on concrete work / code.
I was thinking about a branch to make it clear that it was shared and
that this work was open to all, but I'm also happy to see that work
start in shared sandboxes. On a related note, it looks like this is what
Adriano and Oscar are doing with the Android port for example.
[2] http://marc.info/?l=tuscany-dev&m=121066365312526
Thoughts?
--
Jean-Sebastien
