tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Thomas <>
Subject Re: Time to organise svn - Take 3
Date Sun, 04 Nov 2007 15:53:08 GMT
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
> Mark Thomas wrote:
>> jean-frederic clere wrote:
>>> Why Friday? Shouldn't we wait until 6.0.15 (or 6.0.15 + n) is voted
>>> stable?
>> We can do if that is the preference. My motivation is that I am keen
>> to get
>> back to a CTR codebase asap as I find only having RTC a real pain.
> he he, I think everyone does, however two months ago you said
> "I don't see a need for a separate 6.0.x and 6.1.x development at this
> point. I have yet to see a convincing technical argument that there is
> something sufficiently new and/or different to justify this overhead."
> has anything changed since before when we had trunk and 6.0.x, to the
> point where we have more resources and more todos to maintain 6.0.x,
> 6.1.x and trunk? This is one more branch than we used to have.

Yes and no. What has changed is that we voted to move to a CTR dev branch
and a RTC stable branch. What hasn't changed is my view that we don't want
to be supporting multiple stable 6.x branches at the same time.

There are some API changes for Geronimo and possibly others that people
want to introduce. An API change == version bump, so we are heeding towards
a stable 6.2.x branch using RTC and a dev branch that is CTR. The question
is how we get there with the minimum of hassle (mainly duplicated effort)
for all concerned.

> wouldn't it be better to hold of on the 6.1.x until there is a feature
> set for that release, and only have trunk. Otherwise we will have two
> 6.0.x branches, just one is named 6.1.x but there is nothing different
> with them

I agree we don't want multiple stable branches. What my last proposal[1]
implied but did not make explicit is that the 6.0.x branch is frozen as
soon as 6.0.15 is voted stable. If it isn't voted stable, then we wait
until we have a stable 6.0.x and then move forward as per [1].

That said, your point about agreeing a the feature set is a good one. Your
comments have sparked off what I think is a better idea. Look out for take
4 of the svn organisation, arriving in your inbox later this afternoon.



To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message