Steve
Sorry, I should have been more specific
1) Yes, there will be two separate branches of development. At the
moment, the trunk is the 1.x branch, whereas there is a separate branch
for JDK 5.0 dev. We can keep this the way it is, or swap the trunk and
branch at some stage.
2) We need two sites, for sure. I think an easy way would be to do the
separate Maven 1 (1.x codebase) and Maven 2.0 (2.x codebase) builds, and
just put a link from one site to the other in the Maven menus.
Otherwise, if Maven 2 can handle this kind of situation out of the box,
we should move the 1.x build over to Maven 2 as well.What do you think?
Hope this helps
Rory
Steve Cohen wrote:
Rory Winston wrote:
OK, seeing as we have reached some kind of consensus on how to handle
backards-incompatible JDK releases, I'm restarting the vote for a
release of Commons::Net 2.0 (the JDK 5.0 branch).
As per usual, just respond with
+1
+0
-0
-1
Thanks
Rory
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sorry, Rory, but I think you need to express the consensus that you
think we are voting on. You haven't done that. "release of
Commons::Net 2.0 (the JDK 5.0 branch)" doesn't get to the heart of all
the issues.
1: Are there two "official" branches or is 1.4.x relegated to
"backward compatibility mode"? I would insist that there be two
branches until Sun puts 1.4.x into EndOfLife mode.
2. Is the site going to be organized to reflect the two branches?
If those two points are part of your "motion", I'm +1. Otherwise, I'm
-1.
Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
