On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 3:28 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
+1, let's get consensus first. > > 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. > +1 > ...ant > -- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany Committer http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
