Agree on this. Currently there is a blocking issue with xml-rpc CONTINUUM-1590 which prevent using xml-rpc :-(.
If no objections, I will change root pom to not have anymore maven pom as parent. -- Olivier 2008/3/4, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On 29/02/2008, at 10:04 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > >> > >> On 29/02/2008, at 9:52 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote: > >> > >>> why 1.1.x? > >> > >> in case there was a bugfix release on 1.1? I thought that was what > >> the > >> branch was for... maintenance of 1.1. > >> > >> or is there going to be 2 completely different strands of > >> development? > > > > > > I thought to do 1.x in the branch instead of only maintenance in > > 1.1.xbecause I don't know how many time we'll need for the first > > 2.0 release. User will probably need some new small feature before the > > 2.0release and not only maintenance. > > With the roadmap discussion recently, I thought it was going to be an > incremental move towards 2.0 on trunk - 1.2 will have some parts and > refactorings, 1.3, 1.4 and so on. I'm not sure why there would need to > be two streams of development? I think there's a real danger of > getting lost in the 2.0 trap (c.f. Maven 1.0, Maven 2.0 and Maven 2.1 :) > > I'm actually keen to do a couple of small things myself and get a > release out: > - a few small bug fixes, like the lost change sets for some builds > - better error handling > - switch to a Jetty runtime without the plexus appserver so we can use > jetty 6 > - add a call to svn info --xml to check whether to do an svn update to > speed up working copy updates > > Just stuff I see from running vmbuild and the maven zone. > > I think that and a couple of other refactorings that are being > discussed on here would make a good 1.2 in the next couple of months. > WDYT? > > - Brett > > > -- > Brett Porter > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ > >
