On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 09:54:45AM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
It's time for a 2.1-dev tree, if we want to be playing with new ideas, guys.
If they test out clean and don't break compatibility [in any significant
way]
then they can be backported to 2.0.
I dislike backporting things.
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 08:43:33AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I dislike backporting things. I think we all need to be on the 'same
version.' Heck, we have committers who refuse to use 2.0 (it's not
portable). If we go to 2.1, then I want to see 2.0 closed for
anything other than
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 10:17:52AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
No, that's exactly the problem we have with 1.3 right now. There *are*
people who are willing to backport fixes and even features to the 1.3
tree, it's only a faction of the group here that *doesn't* want that to
happen. I see no
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 10:17:52AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
No, that's exactly the problem we have with 1.3 right now. There *are*
people who are willing to backport fixes and even features to the 1.3
tree, it's only a faction of the group here that *doesn't* want
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I don't think we have enough of a community to continue active
development on two separate (but similar) trees. I don't want to
start 2.1 and still see everyone adding features to 2.0. -- justin
Why not do a tiny temporary branch just for
