basicly I think this discussion is out of scope for this community. It's more a *general* thing.
Currently there are some more donations by companies (like XFire from Iona). I am not sure how they deal with that. When they (Iona or sb. else) needs a special branch. I am also not sure, what Mergere does, when they want something special? Maybe should post this on the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list ? On 8/14/06, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In general, yes, we just have a public branch for a release which continues to be maintained, which is a good thing. My concern is that, in this case, the one calling for the branch is not the Trinidad/MyFaces community, but a specific company. Ideally, the two match up and agree, in which case there's no problem. But the question is - when a company wants an extra branch that the community at large doesn't need, is that a problem? Say, if the community wants one more bug fixed, but the company says "we need a branch now", what happens? I don't see any harm to the project by having extra branches in subversion, but I don't want to assume it's OK without asking everyone here. Thanks, Adam On 8/14/06, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think basicly that what you want is something like: > > a branch for a release or a rc, which is also maintained. > > I think that's fine with Apache, why not? > > In MyFaces we do a branch for *each* release too, but we are > not maintaining the branches *after* the release (which is bad). > > So the work will continue on trunk and if we figure out, that there is > a bug that stopps also the *released* / *branched* version of T., > why not apply the *patch* against the branch too. > > I prefer that too. > > -Matthias > > > For some of our internal, non-open source work here at Oracle, > > we're heavily depending on Trinidad (yay!). The catch is that, > > at certain points, we need a stable branch to build off of and > > apply only limited bug fixes so that internal work never gets > > destabilized. > > > > What I'd like to do is create branches in the Subversion repository > > for Trinidad code, with the following commitments: > > - No proprietary, non-Apache code will *ever* be checked in to > > such branches. > > - No work will happen on these branches that has not *first* > > been checked into trunk, with the possible exception of deeply > > hacky bug patches that wouldn't be wanted on a trunk. > > > > In other words, this will still be public work, and never even > > anything that could be construed as a fork in any way. > > > > Does this seem reasonable? Is it legit by Apache rules? > > > > All the alternatives I can think of are even less legit - e.g., we > > could make an internal copy of the source code, but that just > > reduces our exposure to the internal work and makes it less > > straightforward for us to hew to the true code on the trunk. > > > > -- Adam > > > > > -- > Matthias Wessendorf > > further stuff: > blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf > mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com >
-- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://jroller.com/page/mwessendorf mail: mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
