Danny Angus wrote:
I think so. I'll go ahead and tag and branch later tonight unless there's someone wants me to hold on it.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.
Serge Knystautas
Loki Technologies
http://www.lokitech.com/
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
