Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of adam.kocoloski@gmail.com
 designates 74.125.92.26 as permitted sender)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
Subject: Re: 1.0 Code Management
From: Adam Kocoloski <kocolosk@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <h2i8bdf4e0e1004051516g420a0b12u29dae34fd1285a03@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 20:32:30 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <35450F4D-C1BD-4DBB-A78B-75CFEB5C9F16@apache.org>
References: <F2325EAE-A6F3-4EA4-831A-752CCF8149E5@apache.org>
 <h2i8bdf4e0e1004051516g420a0b12u29dae34fd1285a03@mail.gmail.com>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org

On Apr 5, 2010, at 6:16 PM, Tim Smith wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
>> A conservative view would mandate that we use the 0.11.x branch to =
add
>> bug fixes until it is shaped into a form that we want to call 1.0.0 =
and then
>> branch that into the 1.0.x branch that we keep for maintenance.
>>=20
>> This would allow us to keep using trunk for new features as usual. =
This
>> also means, we have to maintain two to three branches (0.11.x, trunk =
and
>> eventually 1.0.x). This is a lot of bookkeeping.
>=20
> I think it's best to keep trunk =3D=3D where development happens.
> Bookkeeping is inevitable, and I think it doesn't serve anyone to
> create a new development branch named something other than 'trunk' and
> then use it like we should be using trunk.
>=20
> I'd be happy to help with the bookkeeping, if that would be useful.
>=20
> Tim
> --=20
> If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate

I'd also like to cut 1.0 from the 0.11 branch and not have any =
restrictions on what lands in trunk.  Best,

Adam