On May 30, 2005, at 10:56 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Dain Sundstrom wrote, On 5/30/2005 10:43 PM:
On May 30, 2005, at 4:25 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
The problem we have currently is that there is no continuity
between our releases - the APIs, deployment plans, etc. have all
changed incompatibly between them. This was fine with
milestones; however, when we do a production release users need
to have confidence that things won't break with the next one.
Ah we finally get to the root of what you are talking about. I
believe that if we address this issue directly the technical
structure of the svn tree will be obvious.
I agree, it makes no sense in talking about the how until we iron
out the what.
So lets do that.
Jeremy was proposing distinguishing between "stable" - where the
focus is getting to the next release - and "unstable" - where things
unrelated to linear progress to a release are done.
First - do we agree this is a good thing?
Second - if we do agree, besides the suggestion of separate roots
("stable", "unstable", "downright_wacky" (nee "sandbox")), what other
approaches are there?
Said another way, the technical discussion of the svn tree will
never get anywhere without addressing this core issue first.
I think that Jeremy's point is one part of the discussion. The
other is how do we break up Geronimo so that people can mix and
match pieces and still get a stable, functioning, product.
lets solve this one first. The other follows after that, IMO.
geir
Regards,
Alan
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
