On Wed, Jan 26, 2005, Matthew T. O'Connor <[email protected]> said: > Good, glad that has been made crystal clear :-) But I don't think you > need a 2.1 release. 2.1 will just be CVS Head, it should probably be > tagged 2.1 at some point, but we don't need (or want) a 2.1 CVS branch.
I was going to suggest a dbmail_2_1_branch, until the mantra "main development happens on HEAD" started to ring between my ears. So we'll just tag the 2_1_x release points along the way, and eventually we'll be stable and *then* we'll branch off with dbmail_2_2_branch before continuing new work in HEAD again. Aaron
