geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Moving on from 1.1
Date Mon, 22 May 2006 07:23:01 GMT
+1 for copy of 1.1 to trunk.

I'm +0 with oldtrunk but...


On May 21, 2006, at 11:38 PM, Jacek Laskowski wrote:

> On 5/22/06, Matt Hogstrom <matt@hogstrom.org> wrote:
>> I would like to make the following changes to the dev tree for  
>> Geronimo.  Assuming there is
>> concurrence and no objections I would like to:
>>
>>   move geronimo/trunk to geronimo/branches/oldtrunk
>
> +1 for the idea of establishing a fresh trunk out of 1.1 branch, but
> -1 for the name - oldtrunk.
>
> I simply think it doesn't convey any meaning - oldtrunk or to put it
> straight - it won't very soon. We all know what it means/contains now,
> but what about the coming months? I think at some point we forget what
> it was about.  Having said this, I think we should either set a
> timeframe before it gets dropped or apply a better name, e.g.
> geronimo/branches/1.2.
>
> ...after some time of thinking...
>
> Yeah, why couldn't it be named - 1.2? Since it's in branches and noone
> will work in it it doesn't impose any threat to our thinking it's
> active or so. It should not hurt our community either. Some branches
> are active and finish with something concrete whereas some not. If
> there're some brave souls who will want to spend some time polishing
> it out (for some unknown purposes) that's their choice.

I think this would be kind of misleading.  How about 1.2-dead to  
indicate that we don't plan to release it?

thanks
david jencks

>
>>   Matt
>
> Jacek
>
> -- 
> Jacek Laskowski
> http://www.laskowski.net.pl


Mime
View raw message