Right, how are we gonna compile that? Doesn't work like that. We have
a source tree in sync with the examples.

Eelco


On 3/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
so write the models against 2.0. they will be exactly the same in
1.4branch. code examples i guess you can leave for later?

-igor


On 3/7/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> A very big problem for Martijn and me is actually that we can't go on
> with writing until 1.4 is created. Models are everywhere in the book,
> including a separate chapter, and they are based on the 2.0 models
> currently. Martijn and me would have to decide on whether to target
> 1.4 or 1.5 but it would be either of them. Freezing the writing for a
> few weeks is really unacceptable for us. I understand your problems of
> accepting the model change for 1.3, but if it doesn't get in there -
> which is fine - Martijn and me need that 1.4 branch fast.
>
> Eelco
>
>
> On 3/7/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This sounds good to me. The main point of critique I can think of is
> > that so far we haven't be able to do releases very fast. So in that
> > sense, the time schedule is probably very unrealistic. However, there
> > is nothing I would like more then us to be able to actually *do*
> > releases fast, so if this is another carrot on a stick to make *that*
> > happen, I'm all for it.
> >
> > Eelco
> >
> >
> > On 3/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > pasted from almaw's email on @user
> > >
> > > -igor
> > >
> > > -------------------------- 8><
> --------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > In my opinion we could, within the next:
> > > -----------------------------------------
> > >   1 week  - Push 1.3-betas as-is.
> > > 2/3 weeks - Bug fix as people test it and push out rc's when
> > >             we feel it's solid and stable.
> > >   4 weeks - Rename 1.x branch to 1.3.x.
> > >           - Release 1.3.0 final and put 1.3.x immediately into
> > >             maintenance mode.
> > >           - Create 1.4.x branch from 1.3.0 tag.
> > >           - Merge the model changes from trunk to 1.4.x.
> > >           - Backport anything else from trunk to 1.4.x that's
> > >             not JDK5-specific.
> > >   6 weeks - Push out 1.4-betas
> > > 7/8 weeks - Push out 1.4-rc's
> > >   9 weeks - Push out 1.4.0 final
> > >           - Create 1.5.x branch from 1.4.0 tag.
> > >           - Backport/add generics, covariance and other JDK 5 trunk
> > >             features to the 1.5.x branch.
> > >           - Move trunk to "2.0_deprecated_-_use_1.5.x_instead"
> > > 14+ weeks - Release 1.5.0
> > >
> > > Suggestions to make this work:
> > > ------------------------------
> > > We won't backport from 1.4.x -> 1.3.x.
> > > We won't actively develop trunk.
> > > We will push 1.4 out very soon after 1.3, and encourage migration.
> > > We will have this in a public roadmap so people can see it coming.
> > >
> > > Notes on what you think is insanity, but actually isn't:
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > We will of course end up with five(!) branches (1.2.x, 1.3.x, 1.4.x,
> > > 1.5.x and what's currently trunk). This may seem like madness to you,
> > > but I reckon it isn't:
> > >
> > > During 1.3 development, 2.x is low activity, 1.2.x negligible.
> > > During 1.4 development, 1.3.x and 2.x are low, 1.2.x negligible.
> > > During 1.5 development, only 1.4.x will also be quite active.
> > >
> > > Once 1.5.0 is out, we can properly deprecate 2.0. People currently
> using
> > > it may not like being told to migrate to 1.5.x, but that shouldn't be
> > > too hard (much less hard than going from 1.3->2.0) and there shouldn't
> > > be too many of them. I guess that's the price you sometimes pay for
> > > using unreleased software. :-/
> > >
> > > I'd envisage 1.4.x will require some backports from 1.5.x. We'd
> > > obviously encourage core developers and patchers to upgrade their
> sites
> > > to use 1.5.x, do active development on that, and therefore try to only
> > > ever backport from 1.5.x to 1.4.x, not forward-port the other way
> around.
> > >
> > > If you think I'm smoking crack, the above is utterly unreasonable, you
> > > want to kick me out of the gang, or you have any better ideas or
> > > suggestions as to how to keep everyone happy, please shout now. :-)
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Alastair
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to