On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Simon Laws<[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 4:14 PM, ant elder<[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Simon Laws<[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Simon Laws<[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 1:58 PM, ant elder<[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> How are we doing with this? I've checked in all the changes i have and >>>>> just had a full build of the latest 1.x code complete successfully, >>>>> should we take a branch soon before anything breaks? >>>>> >>>>> ...ant >>>>> >>>> >>>> I've got a couple of things I need to check in. I'll ping back here >>>> when I'm done. >>>> >>>> Simon >>>> >>> >>> Not done yet but wanted to close off whether we are branching to 1.6 >>> or 1.5.1. I prefer 1.6 because all changes have been made to 1.x >>> rather than to a branch of 1.5. To do 1.5 it would be more appropriate >>> to branch 1.5 and then apply the changes which seems the more complex >>> of the two choices. >>> >>> Simon >>> >> >> Complex in what way? >> >> - To create a 1.5.1 svn copy 1.x and rename all the versions to 1.5.1 >> >> - To create a 1.6 svn copy 1.x and rename all the versions to 1.6 and >> then rename all the versions in trunk to 1.7 >> >> So going with 1.5.1 seems simpler as we don't need to bump up the trunk >> version. >> >> I'm not sure it matters for 1.5.1 vs 1.6 where the changes where >> actually first committed, users wont know or care so it doesn't matter >> if the release is based on a copy of trunk or old 1.5 branch. If you >> really prefer 1.6 i guess i don't mind, but i wonder what the release >> notes will have to say other than a few bug fixes, and it was only a >> month since 1.5 so at that rate we'll quite quickly run out of 1.x >> release numbers soon. >> >> ...ant >> > > I agree that the release notes will be mainly fixes of whichever we go > and from that pov 1.5.1 seems appropriate. The reason I'm not keen on > 1.5.1 as the changes have been made to 1.x and not the 1.5 code base. > Splitting hairs maybe but there you go. > > Simon >
Ignore the spring problem it's bogus. Some problem with running mvn with Eclipse open (I get that a lot). Simon
