+1 to all of that. Who wants to (and knows how to) create a branch? > -----Original Message----- > From: Kirk Rasmussen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 1:04 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Releasing 1.3 and new development > > > I am in total agreement. A stable 1.3 branch is definitely needed. > > I think it would be very confusing for a new WW user to be > expected to > pull from the CVS head when the head potentially changes minute by > minute. The 1.2 release has been totally ignored because > work continued on the head to create the 1.3 release. > > IMO the feature sets should be better defined with specific > goals so that > developers know when a release is ready to be baked. I might > be wrong but it > seems that 1.3 was arbitrarily created because its been long > enough since > the 1.2 release. Consistent logging, performance > enhancements and stability seems to be the goals of 1.3 from > what I can tell. > > I an very confident that myself and several others on this > list would help to > maintain the 1.3 branch if necessary. > > BTW great job guys! WW does indeed rock! > > Regards, > Kirk Rasmussen > Lucasfilm Ltd. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jason Carreira [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 7:36 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [OS-webwork] Releasing 1.3 and new development > > > > > > Nononono you misunderstood. My bad. > > > > I want to branch 1.3 to be able to do bug fixes for any > future 1.3.x > > releases. > > > > I want to keep the CVS head for continuing development and > > new features > > with a view to a 1.4 release. > > > > Xwork 1.0 and Webwork 2.0 can, and should, remain in the > sandbox for > > now, until a LOT of issues are worked out and it's been > fleshed out to > > do everything that WW 1.3 does. > > > > My point was really to be able to get back to 1.3 for bug > fixes while > > not keeping people from continuing to develop against the CVS head. > > I'm not terribly comfortable with CVS, so I was throwing > this out for > > someone to do. If we were using Perforce, I would create a branch, > > because branching is fast and low cost and it's how you do most code > > management in P4. > > > > Jason > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Hani Suleiman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 10:27 AM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: [OS-webwork] Releasing 1.3 and new development > > > > > > > > > I like webwork head cvs, and want to see it keep moving > > > forward. We can tag a release (1.3) anytime now, really. Only > > > thing that perhaps needs doing is updating some of the docs, > > > and having decent release notes. xwork is still sandbox, and > > > is nowhere near production worthy (right?) and I'd much > > > rather than those of us who enjoy webwork and contributing to > > > it don't end up feeling like second class citizens in > > favour of xwork. > > > > > > Quoting Jason Carreira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > People have been adding new stuff, like the Velocity based > > > templates, > > > > while the head is still (as far as I know) supposed to be > > > 1.3 RC2. I > > > > like new stuff (see Xwork), but we really need to branch > > > 1.3 to keep > > > > it clean of new stuff so we can develop against the head. > > > If we end up > > > > needing to release 1.3.1 or somesuch to fix bugs, then > > > we'll need the > > > > 1.3 source tree as a base to work from without keeping > > people from > > > > moving forward. > > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jason Carreira > > > > Technical Architect, Notiva Corp. > > > > phone: 585.240.2793 > > > > fax: 585.272.8118 > > > > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --- > > > > Notiva - optimizing trade relationships (tm) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > This SF.NET email is sponsored by: > > > > SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = > > > Something 2 See! > > > > http://www.vasoftware.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webw ork > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > This SF.NET email is sponsored by: > > SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something > > 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com > > _______________________________________________ > > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.NET email is sponsored by: > SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld =omething 2 See! > http://www.vasoftware.com > _______________________________________________ > Opensymphony-webwork mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork >
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld =omething 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com _______________________________________________ Opensymphony-webwork mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-webwork
