My opinion is, that I don't care much about having multiple branches (private branches).
For instance I created my own branch of Trinidad for some work on my ApacheCon presentation. Only me is using that. And it's not really official supported by the community and the development team. We always point the users to the trunk (or a special branch) in case of the plugins-release-branch. That are the "official" supported onces. So to me, not a big deal to have, that only you are interested. what do you think ? 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
