Greg Wilkins wrote, On 1/15/2006 4:21 AM:
I would like to create a dev branch to start working on some
1.1 and 2.0 stuff.
But I don't think it is appropriate to pollute /branch with
private branches as it will be good to be able to go there and see
all the official branches:
/branch/1.0
/branch/1.1
without seeing
/branch/djencks
/branch/gregw
/branch/dain
etc. etc.
So I would like to propose a secondary location for development
branches /devbranch.
Moreover, I don't think that development branches should be
considered private branches as this would encourage many branches
and discourage cooperative development. I think they should be named
for the features they are trying to develop. So we would have
things like
/devbranch/servlet-2.5
/devbranch/openejb-3
/devbranch/kernel
I think the policy should be that anything targeted for an
x.0 release should be developed in a /devbranch.
Anything for a x.y branch can be developed in /trunk or
in a /devbranch if it's development may take longer
than a single x.y cycle or if it's inclusion in an x.y
release is up for debate.
Anything for a x.y.z branch can be developed in trunk but
should be stabilized in the /branch/x.y
Isn't this what a sandbox is for? I see that the sandbox is in
geronimo/trunk/sandbox hence, it is improperly versioned. I say
improperly because I don't see a reason to version sandbox work.
I propose that we move the sandbox to geronimo/sandbox.
Regards,
Alan
