On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip> +1. Many of the items suggested for 2.0 have previously been the > subject of discussions that have not been easy to close. Until > we have agreement on how to approach these things, I think it's > better for 2.0 development to happen in an "investigative" branch. > Doing this will allow us to try different approaches and see > which we prefer, without causing a lot of churn to the trunk. > So based on the comments so far I think we should hold off on moving to 2.0 for now. That said I'm extremely wary of the having work going on in "investigative" branches, given Tuscany's history of branches and forks I really really hope this doesn't happen much and we'd instead all try to work together in the trunk. ...ant
