Leo Simons wrote:
>>I think a sensible approach is to do what Linux Kernel development does.
>>It branches the development into a Stable branch and a Development
>>branch. The truth is we need a *stable* Phoenix.
>
>
> Which is what I would propose....but I am afraid that the people most
> active on phoenix maintainance (ie pete, paul, ....) would just leave
> the stable branch lying around, being stable.
>
> The linux kernel team has more resources. Maintaining branches is a
> resource commitment. I'm not going to ask it of the phoenix people.
>
> but it'd be smart =)
Hopefully, all that is required is for it to sit around. However if
there are bug fixes that people submit, it would be easier to apply
them to the branch. Then you can determine if it is still true of the
new development--which might be the case with classloader issues.
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
