> Ate Douma wrote: >> But we also should discuss what to do with the current trunk. >> I haven't closely followed the trunk status, but there might be >> (significant) changes since the 1.4.0 release? > I guess you mean 1.1.4. Yes, of course :) > >> Although the JSR-286 is supposed to be JSR-168 backwards compatible, we >> cannot assume every user is going to migrate to Pluto 2.0 (immediately). >> Thus we have to cater for future maintenance / bug fixes on at least the >> latest 1.x version too, which effectively means there will be 2 active >> Pluto versions... (comparable to for instance Tomcat 5.5.x and Tomcat >> 6.x development). > True. > >> >> So I think we might need to release the current trunk (as Pluto 1.1.5 or >> 1.2, whatever) *before* the 1.1-JSR-286-trunk-merge branch becomes >> trunk. >> Once the trunk is released, I suggest deleting it and then simply > Hmm, I'm not sure. Currently we have (apart from all 286 related > branches) trunk which is 1.2.0 and a 1.1.x branch. > We definitly don't want to maintain three development trees I guess > (1.1.x, 1.2.x and 2.0.0). So I'm not sure if we need a 1.2.0 release at > all. > So I think we have two possibilites: > a) Forget about a 1.2.0 release, remove current trunk and use the 286 > branch as the new trunk. This will leave us with a 1.1.x branch and > trunk for 2.0.0. > > b) If 1.2.0 brings significant improvements over 1.1.x, then we should > focus on a 1.2.0 release. Then we should move current trunk to a 1.2.x > branch and move the 286 branch to trunk. This will leave us with three > product lines, 1.1.x, 1.2.x and 2.0.x. > c) Depending on the status of the trunk and how much has changed, wouldn't it be easier to release it as 1.1.5 instead of as 1.2? That way, we can stick to two version trees, 1.1.x and 2.x.
> > Carsten > > -- > Carsten Ziegeler > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
