IMHO there's 2 possible triggers for branching off: - it's time to run the build/release and you want to make sure you capture the point at which this was done - a critical piece of work that should not go into the build/release absolutely has to go into CVS
so for practical reasons (i.e. having to double-commit a bunch of stuff) you probably want to wait as long as possible from now on ... might even want to consider hanging on to post-next-release patches until after the branch has been created. On the other hand, double maintenance doesn't need to be all that painful. Since everybody's used to using patchfiles anyway, why not keep 2 checked out versions of Ant around (one on the branch, one on the HEAD). Apply a patch to both and do a commit on both. I betcha it's every so slightly quicker than the whole cvs merge thing. just my CAD$ .02 Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: Antoine Lévy-Lambert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: September 23, 2003 6:35 AM > To: Ant Developers List > Subject: AW: Ant 1.6 > [...] > I also think that branches add extra work, but sooner or later > someone will > have a new feature which can only go into 1.7 and not in 1.6. There is > already <classloader/> which I have got to remove from the ANT_16_BRANCH. > > Cheers, > > Antoine --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
