I should have read this before replying to the other thread :) IMHO I think the stable branch is the right way to go. Continuous merging can be a pain and a discipline, but is far less painful than one almighty merge as we've all seen recently.
If HEAD has the refactorings on it and starts by getting the core plugins working, then gradually fixing the other ones (things not required to build maven itself), as well as merging working portions of the branch as they come in and again fixing any issues like property names, I don't think this will be hard. In my experience, this will get the product out the door quicker, which I'm sure everyone wants. I've been pretty busy the last week or so, and priorities at work have been elsewhere (14 developers and about that many projects all about to start using intelliJ instead of eclipse; so I worked on that plugin). But other than that, I'm planning to start looking at HEAD stabilisation if I get any spare time. Just my $A0.02 Cheers, Brett > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, 7 August 2003 11:17 PM > To: Maven Developers List > Subject: Re: CVS Head > > > Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 07/08/2003 10:48:30 PM: > > > On Thu, 2003-08-07 at 08:14, Rafal Krzewski wrote: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > After a discussion on IRC with Jason this afternoon I've > > > > volunteered > to > > > > roll back CVS Head so it has the pre-refactor code + the changes > since, > > > > until Jason can spend some more time on getting the refactor > > > > working > with > > > > all the plugins. > > > > > > > > Does anyone have a problem with rolling back the refactor? > > > > > > This is really bad news. Porting changes back and forth > between the > > > branches is a always a waste of effort. > > > > Yup. I didn't want to check in my stuff until I had worked on it > > further but a couple folks wanted to see if ended up not > understanding > > it and it has indeed been a wasted effort. > Not from my angle. > > > > The time needed to do that > > > could be spent better on fixing the problems in HEAD. > > > > Yes, but I'm tired of fighting the "I want it now!" > mentality. I will > > quietly get everything working and test it before I check things in > > again. > I'd be happy if we could do incremental changes too. > > > > If there is pressure however to have beta 11 released without the > > > memory leak plugged up, a MAVEN_BETA_11 branch could be > sprouted at > > > the point of pre refactoring tag, and as many bug fixes > as possible > > > would be ported there. > > > > You have much experience with branches and this sort of > thing and we > > could probably learn from your experiences. Do you want to > head this > > up seeing as you wrote the branches documentation that we have. > Sounds good 2 me!!! > > dIon >
