On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 17:32 +0100, Andreas Jung wrote:
> --On 13. November 2005 11:26:44 -0500 Jim Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Chris,
> >
> > I appreciate that you were trying to help.
> > I still wish you hadn't made the branch. :)
> >
> >
> svn delete should solve that problem :-)

Of course the release manager should have the last say and as the
release manager it's totally valid for Andreas to delete the branch.
Apologies for taking initiative.  I was really just trying to unstick
Paul and get things rolling again.

But I'd like to understand the rationale for not branching at the time
if the feature freeze (Nov 1).  Is it just to avoid the work of merging
changes from the branch back the HEAD during the period between the
freeze and the beta?  Doesn't svn make this pretty easy?  And what is
the maximum amount of time between freeze and beta that we'd consider

Also, it sounds as if there's an argument being made that *everyone*
should pitch in to get 2.9 beta out the door *instead* of committing
Zope 2 feature work and the delayed branching is the manifestation of
"legislation" that aims to make this happen.  I'm not sure it's healthy
to legislate this.  There are people who have no burning desire to see a
2.9 go out the door within the next few weeks, but OTOH they are very
willing to commit some valuable feature work right now for an eventual
2.10 release and due to the freeze, they haven't done so (and may never
do so if not now, given the volunteer-ness of their efforts).  How can
we accomodate those people in the future?  IMO, we should try not to
discourage contribution and so we should branch regardless of the state
of the trunk within, say, two weeks of freeze.  Does that sound
reasonable for future releases?

- C

Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to