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: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=Received:Mime-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Message-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding:From:Subject:Date:To:X-Mailer;
  b=BAeEwXMDNO+46nZgNXZD+3PhHzixVMsI/xJqcDBi4FZ2XkVX334+oOhaT0ytebGtozqjJYiRKSm1cJrAP+d6L3oZTf2MsnzPzwRRxUtU3pE9hWr0krbQVc3wiGAlFzQ3cQOK2EjFGZO3siDPH2oYie8o1zpO+ESV98vglP35YjA=
  ;
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2)
In-Reply-To: <1b5bfeb50605212338g4927d483xee9d9086181f425f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4471198B.5000806@hogstrom.org>
 <1b5bfeb50605212338g4927d483xee9d9086181f425f@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <5DD26D0D-9E5C-45CE-8171-C89861F11607@yahoo.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Moving on from 1.1
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 00:23:01 -0700
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org

+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