On Fri, 19 Mar 2004, Joe Germuska wrote: > At 2:48 PM -0500 3/14/04, Ted Husted wrote: > >I'd say we could branch what we have as 1.2 and start thinking of > >the HEAD as 1.3. > > > >IMHO, the quickest way to sort out what we need to do with the > >Struts-Chain RequestProcessor is to get it out there as the nightly > >build. [Many hands make light work ;)] > > > >So, we could reserve the 1.2 for any desperate fixes (as we've done > >before), but do anything resembling new development against the HEAD > >(1.3). > > I might do something like this over the weekend, depending on my time > (then again, I may not at all!) > > But if I did, I'd want to see if anyone had any strong feelings, or > fixes they thought they'd like to get in before a branch, or... ?
I'm all for creating a 1.2.x branch so that work can begin on 1.3.x on HEAD, but I'm firmly against creating that branch on HEAD right now. I see little justification for creating a branch at a random point in the development cycle. IMNSHO, branches should only be created from a release point, especially given our newly adopted Tomcat-style release model, which means that the time between releases should be short. A bunch of stuff has changed since 1.2.0, so it clearly doesn't make sense to create a branch from there. A few more things need to happen before we're ready for 1.2.1, but not too many, IMO, so I believe we should create the 1.3.x branch at the point at which we release 1.2.1. If people want to start on 1.3.x, then I'd suggest we all pitch in and try to get 1.2.1 in shape for release ASAP. [Note: Technically, we should vote on how to categorise 1.2.0. However, I have not send out a vote request, since it seems fairly obvious to me that there was breakage enough to classify it as a test build and no more. If anyone else feels otherwise, please speak up! ;)] > Or should all of this wait until we get the move to struts.apache.org > settled? I'm assuming we'll reorganize CVS as part of that, into > struts-core, struts-taglib, etc... Speaking of that, can we/should > we do anything to preserve CVS logs if we move files? Or will we > start fresh? I think if we move the actual CVS files it will all be > preserved, but I've never tried that. There are a number of things that will need to be taken care of as part of the move to TLP, but I don't think they should impact this too much. The CVS repo move, as Ted suggests, is really a rename. Any reorganisation of the code base we want to do is independent of that. > I'm interested in getting the Struts Chain stuff mainstreamed, but > like I said, this may very well not be the weekend I start on it. In > any case, I figured a branch would be cause for a little bit of > discussion amongst committers. Indeed. ;-) I'm looking forward to seeing Chain move forward too, but I have a big fat serious caveat before we do anything at all here to bring it into the mainstream. Commons Chain is still in the sandbox. I feel very strongly that we should not be relying on sandbox components in the mainstream of Struts. We've been through the pain of that several times before, and I don't want to have to deal with it again. So before we bring Struts Chain into the mainstream, Chain needs to be promoted out of the sandbox and into Commons Proper, preferably in good enough shape that it's not too far from being released. (Of course, the latter condition will affect a vote to promote it in the first place!) -- Martin Cooper > > Joe > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
