Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v734)
In-Reply-To: <74e15baa050919210238db510b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <604FADE8-DA00-46F9-9078-DDBECA0832BD@apache.org>
 <432F544E.3040802@apache.org> <22CB655C-9B6E-432C-AC27-C4F285C1472F@iq80.com>
 <74e15baa0509191746127fabad@mail.gmail.com> <432F6887.4040204@hogstrom.org>
 <432F73A4.5010204@savoirtech.com> <432F843D.7040308@apache.org>
 <432F87C1.5060602@savoirtech.com> <74e15baa050919210238db510b@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <0325796E-1523-4551-9C74-6D3473CC940F@visi.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: David Blevins <david.blevins@visi.com>
Subject: Re: [discuss] branch and tag policy (and stable/unstable mixed in :)
 - refocus
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:50:31 -0700
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org

Alright guys, we're talking over each other again and are too far =20
down in the details.

This entire thing started as Geir wanted to do 1.0-M5.1, 1.0-M5.2, =20
1.0-M5.3, ... 1.0-M5.N while we all work on 1.0-M6 (or whatever).

That's not a bad goal, but we have to agree on what we are going for =20
before we can decide what to call it.

So...

Are we going to put a stake in the sand now and start doing minor =20
revisions (patch only, no new features) on this release... or are we =20
going to wait till some time in the future=10?

I am totally cool with whatever, but we have to get on the same page =20
first.

If we decide to put a stake in the sand now and branch off a =20
stabilization effort, we will need to define at least at a high level =20=

what "stable" means to us in terms of the actual code, functionality, =20=

and files that comprise our software.  There must be some common =20
yardstick on which we measure stable/unstable.

-David=