On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 8:12 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Jean-Sebastien Delfino < > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > 1.3 sounds good to me. I'm assuming that we'll cut that branch out of > > > trunk? > > > > > > I'm asking because I'm interested in working on some improvements of > 1.2 > > > in the next few weeks. This shouldn't delay any 2.0 work however, > which > > can > > > go in parallel. > > > > > > > > That sounds scary. > > > > Are you saying you don't think its the right time for 2.0? I started > this > > discussion to see if there was consensus to move to 2.0, if there's not > > consensus then we should not do it. The last thing we need is dev going > on > > in multiple branches as happened in the old days. > > > > ...ant > > > > Maybe this means we should consider the trunk to be 1.X and branch for 2.0 > at the point at which someone wants to start investigating 2.0. I've been > thinking of this 2.0 exercise as investigative in the first instance hence > [1]. By that I mean that I would fully expect us to do other 1.X releases > before any 2.0 features appear in released form. > > B.t.w - have copied in the user list as we neglected to do this and this > is > as much a user discussion as a developer discussion. > > Simon > Keeping maintenance branches going and porting fixes from trunk back to them seems fine but as has been demonstrated several times in Tuscany's history we are not able to maintain a consensus based approach to development when new development is going on in multiple branches. If we're not ready to make backward compatibility breaking changes to the trunk code then IMHO we should just wait. ...ant
