We've just chatted on the IRC channel about this. So for now we'll only
want to do bug fixes on the 1.x branch as people report them. If we take
too long getting 2.0 out we can revisit whether we want to merge back
specific new features to 1.x
Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
I would defer for as long as possible the creation of a branch. Until
we start committing the api incompatible changes, I don't think we
should create a branch.
And yeah, camel-1.5 is fine. The actual version number of the release
is 1.5.0 right now, so we could follow up with 1.5.x and not go to
1.6. Hopefully 2.0 is not more than a few months down the road.
Hadrian
On Oct 29, 2008, at 9:55 AM, James Strachan wrote:
Sounds good with me. camel-1.5 is fine with me. Kinda like 1.5.x
though to imply 'the next 1.5 release' but don't mind too much.
2008/10/29 Jonathan Anstey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Now that the 1.5 release is pretty much complete I'm thinking of
setting up
a branch so we can start hacking on 2.0 stuff more freely. I guess
there are
several options on names
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/activemq/camel/branches/camel-1.5
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/activemq/camel/branches/camel-1.5.x
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/activemq/camel/branches/camel-1.x
I prefer camel-1.5 since it follows ActiveMQ's branching convention
- does
anybody else have a preference?
I'm also going to set up
http://www.orcaware.com/svn/wiki/Svnmerge.py on
that branch so we can have nice merge tracking between trunk and the
branch.
Cheers,
Jon
--
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
Open Source Integration
http://fusesource.com/
