Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of eljotpl@gmail.com designates
 66.249.82.207 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=bMCPo1GsMuyKfCVj7F7EOHD1RoXd/XhRTRSKGO8rBfpBebvjFkZuyWvboHFYTRO1xTHuK4WSMLy6wbrztzugIFyP7Rr/D/0SrgxEBrn/qyBYQvZd7bZYiyIrnymKHdmdOsW+HDGksWiGGG2CyU0vmoMmUp0xR9ZJ+QOB1UTz77M=
Message-ID: <1b5bfeb50601160208m24422e18x@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 11:08:17 +0100
From: Jacek Laskowski <eljotpl@gmail.com>
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Dev branches?
In-Reply-To: <43CA3E41.6020806@mortbay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <43CA3E41.6020806@mortbay.com>

2006/1/15, Greg Wilkins <gregw@mortbay.com>:

> So I would like to propose a secondary location for development
> branches /devbranch.

Hi Greg,

-1. I think it's well addressed by Alan's response when he'd stated
that sandbox was exactly for this. I support his view.

> Moreover, I don't think that development branches should be
> considered private branches as this would encourage many branches
> and discourage cooperative development.  I think they should be named
> for the features they are trying to develop.   So we would have
> things like
>
>  /devbranch/servlet-2.5
>  /devbranch/openejb-3
>  /devbranch/kernel

Certainly +1.

> I think the policy should be that anything targeted for an
> x.0 release should be developed in a /devbranch.

e.g. sandbox ;)

> Anything for a x.y branch can be developed in /trunk or
> in a /devbranch if it's development may take longer
> than a single x.y cycle or if it's inclusion in an x.y
> release is up for debate.
>
> Anything for a x.y.z branch can be developed in trunk but
> should be stabilized in the /branch/x.y

+1. Let's do this way and see how it'll work out.

--
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.laskowski.org.pl