Kief Morris wrote:
> Craig R. McClanahan typed the following on 02:59 PM 1/19/2001 -0800
> >> So what do we need a 4.1 branch for then?
> >
> >If we take the action Remy recommends, we won't. I'm +1 for this
>
> OK, I understand the motivations for this. When/how do you think the
> PersistentManager code I submitted last week should be integrated?
> I hate to put more untried code into 4.0, but I'd really like to see it
> committed somewhere where people can try it and I can build onto
> it. I have a number of things I'd like discuss doing with the session
> classes, like refactoring StandardSession into an abstract class and
> implementing the locking/request completion stuff we've discussed
> here.
>
This one has been troubling me too.
I've been looking through the code and like most of what I see so far, and agree
that we need to be able to experiment with it, but not destabilize the base
release. In 4.1, this would have been entirely appropriate -- but not really if
we unfreeze 4.0.
How about if we create a branch of 4.0, and I check in these changes on that
branch? If things work out well, we can merge back to the main branch --
otherwise, wel'll have learned what needs to be done to add this functionality
into 4.1.
> Kief
>
Craig
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
