geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Moving on from 1.1
Date Mon, 22 May 2006 14:20:35 GMT
+1 for copy branches/1.1 to trunk
+0 for move of current trunk to oldtrunk
+1 for move existing trunk to a name indicating it was abandoned.  
e.g. 'dead-1.2' or 'abandoned-1.2'. Note reversal of '1.2'. This  
avoids directory name completion conflicts with the real 'branches/ 
1.2'.  Typing 'branches/1.2<tab>' will give you 'branches/1.2/', not  
a choice between 1.2 and 1.2-dead...

--kevan

On May 22, 2006, at 3:23 AM, David Jencks wrote:

> +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