On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, John Casey wrote:
I'll throw in some more coins here.
> | - having a 2.1 trunk and 2.0.1 branch (or vice versa, or neither)
>
> I'm +1 for 2.1 as trunk, and 2.0.x maintenance branch (with that name,
> and tags for 2.0.1, etc.). I think this makes the most sense, and will
> le
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'm replying to the top-level of the thread, since I'm not sure where
else to attach my 2 cents. :)
| - having a 2.1 trunk and 2.0.1 branch (or vice versa, or neither)
I'm +1 for 2.1 as trunk, and 2.0.x maintenance branch (with that name,
and tags
Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
- whether to mark versions as -alpha, -beta along the
way, or only
label releases at those points (for 2.1 only on this)
I like 2.1-SNAPSHOT over 2.1-alpha-SNAPSHOT.
+1
Personally, I'm against alpha, beta ...
It doesn't help us because managers (in companies) do
>
> > > - whether to mark versions as -alpha, -beta along the
> way, or only
> > > label releases at those points (for 2.1 only on this)
> >
> > I like 2.1-SNAPSHOT over 2.1-alpha-SNAPSHOT.
>
> +1
Personally, I'm against alpha, beta ...
It doesn't help us because managers (in companies) don't
On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 10:37 +0200, Trygve Laugstøl wrote:
> Brett Porter wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Now that 2.0 is getting close to rolling out, I wanted to open the floor
> > for discussion about how we will manage the code going forward. We have
> > a lot more freedom to do things better now that w
On 10/17/05, Kenney Westerhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, [ISO-8859-1] Trygve Laugstøl wrote:
> > Brett Porter wrote:
> > > Here are some areas to think about:
> > > - having a 2.1 trunk and 2.0.1 branch (or vice versa, or neither)
> >
> > I'd prefer for 2.1 as trunk and 2.0.x
Kenney Westerhof wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, [ISO-8859-1] Trygve Laugstøl wrote:
Brett Porter wrote:
Hi,
Now that 2.0 is getting close to rolling out, I wanted to open the floor
for discussion about how we will manage the code going forward. We have
a lot more freedom to do things better no
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, [ISO-8859-1] Trygve Laugstøl wrote:
> Brett Porter wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Now that 2.0 is getting close to rolling out, I wanted to open the floor
> > for discussion about how we will manage the code going forward. We have
> > a lot more freedom to do things better now that we
Brett Porter wrote:
Hi,
Now that 2.0 is getting close to rolling out, I wanted to open the floor
for discussion about how we will manage the code going forward. We have
a lot more freedom to do things better now that we're no longer
bootstrapping ourselves.
Here are some areas to think about:
-
On 10/15/05, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here are some areas to think about:
> - having a 2.1 trunk and 2.0.1 branch (or vice versa, or neither)
Well, I always prefer the Flying Fish technique, isn't that
recommended by maven itself? ;)
http://maven.apache.org/development/branches.ht
I'm hoping to get the chance to contribute some development time to
Maven2 in future, so here is my 2c - maybe it only counts for 1c right
now! :-)
On 10/15/05, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now that 2.0 is getting close to rolling out, I wanted to open the floor
> for discussion about
Hi,
Now that 2.0 is getting close to rolling out, I wanted to open the floor
for discussion about how we will manage the code going forward. We have
a lot more freedom to do things better now that we're no longer
bootstrapping ourselves.
Here are some areas to think about:
- having a 2.1 trunk an
12 matches
Mail list logo
