Danny Angus wrote:
My personal opinion closely matches Matthew's.  If you want to stabilize
development of 2.1, and encourage development of 3.0, then name 2.1 a
branch.  If you want to encourage development of two divergent code
bases, then create two CVS trees.


I think we have a concensus then, both internally and incuding Sam's
comment, for a branch?

d.
I think so. I'll go ahead and tag and branch later tonight unless there's someone wants me to hold on it.

Serge Knystautas
Loki Technologies
http://www.lokitech.com/



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Reply via email to