Agreed... Is there anything in trunk currently which wouldn't be viable in 2.2? I don't think so. In any case, I was certainly unclear that for now on, all stuff expected to be in 2.2 needed to be backported by the committer to the 2.2 branch. I must have missed the "We are branching off 2.2 from the tree NOW" email, and so I apologize.
Brad Nicholes wrote: > > I think we all agree that all of the backporting and sync'ing sucks > but I don't see any other way of doing this. At some point 2.2 has to > branch, stabilize and finally release. In a perfect world releasing 2.2 > would happen immediately after branching it so that no backporting or > sync'ing would be required. The problem is that the world we are in > isn't even close to perfect. So in order to minimize the pain, we > should be putting our efforts into stabilizing and releasing 2.2. Then > hopefully and within a reasonable time period, the 2.0 branch will just > fade away so that we don't have to worry about it much any more. > > Brad > > >>> On Friday, September 16, 2005 at 1:49:12 pm, in message > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Sander Striker wrote: > > > >> The latter should never happen. Develop on trunk, merge back to > >> stable: 2.2 branch, or 2.2 branch and 2.0 branch. > >> > >> At least, that's what I envisioned after all the discussion on how > >> to move on with the branch/versioning scheme. > > > > The problem is that doing a typo fix in the docs can wind up taking > me a > > good half-hour in this model. So I just don't do it much anymore. > > > > Joshua. > -- ======================================================================= Jim Jagielski [|] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball."
