-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> On 27 Nov 2006, at 11:53, yuppie wrote:
>>>> I don't think this is a legitimate switch: GS 1.2 is *much*
>>>> later, in
>>>> terms of release management, than CMF 1.6, and introduces new
>>> Currently GenericSetup 1.2 is the only version with a maintenance
>>> branch. CMF-1.6.1-final was tagged *after* GenericSetup 1.1, so an
>>> additional 1.1 maintenance branch would not help us. Therefore
>>> using GenericSetup 1.2 in CMF 1.6 might be the best solution.
But CMF 1.6.0 was released before 1.1, even::
$ svn propget svn:externals $ZSVN/CMF/tags/1.6.0
We shouldn't move the 1.6 release line to a newer GenericSetup release,
at least without a really good reason.
>>> What I really don't like are externals that point to the *HEAD* of
>>> a branch. Instead of moving targets we should use revision numbers.
>>> (It might make sense to make an exception for CMF trunk.)
> I'm happy with any policy that we can agree on. Right now there's
> none, and that leads to confusion.
> I'd suggest a policy where a CMF maintenance branch points to the
> head of a GS maintenance branch, and when a CMF version is tagged its
> external is "frozen" at that particluar SVN revision for GS. There's
> no need to make a GS tag for a CMF release I think.
I think we should be *trying* to keep the CMF pointed at released
versions of GS, and should definitely delay making CMF releases until we
can tie them to a tagged release of GS. Dependencies which are released
separately need to be managed with more care.
Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v18.104.22.168 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests