David Reid wrote: > > > If you are looking at 2.1 being as different from 2.0 as 1.3 and 2.0 are, > > then perhaps a branch isn't the best idea. But if you are looking at > > having that many differences before 2.0 has even had a chance to stablize, > > I think you are asking for trouble and how to manage the CVS repository > > would be the least of the worries... > > Hmm, a nice summary of my own feelings and concerns. :) >
And mine as well (and a concern I had since the topic was 1st mentioned/ suggested many moons ago). The 2.1 branch makes sens iff the intent is to place 2.0 in API and feature "freeze" and work on stabilizing and tuning the code, not that "we're bored with 2.0 and want to work on the next cool verson and all this crud about keeping 2.0 stable and robust is really slowing down my creative juices" ;) Not that anyone is saying, or has said that. -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
