Glenn wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 03:46:26PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > Why 1.4? What will 1.4 have that 1.3 does not? Or do you mean > > reopening 1.3 implies that it becomes 1.4? > > Only semantics. .4 is even, so stable; .5 is development and less stable >
Personally, I've never liked that methodology.... Unless *really* controlled, I think it almost restricts development, since the 1.5 tree kind of gets "super developed" and only occasionally are "safe things" brought down to 1.4. Other development teams do this much better than we do, IMO. With our development scenario, and they way we are structured (no benevolent dictator), having one tree, which is developed and polished, seems almost healthier. -- =========================================================================== 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
