Forrest switched to SVN, for example. Jan
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Dominique Devienne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Gesendet am: Mittwoch, 25. August 2004 15:46 > An: Ant Developers List > Betreff: RE: Ant 1.6.3 [was status report on the PMC list] > > > From: Conor MacNeill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > The choices I see for branch management are: > > > > 1. Keep going the way we are now - i.e. applying changes to > both HEAD > > and the active branch. > > > > 2. Keep going as we do now but make sure branches are shorter lived. > The > > impact of this would be to have fewer micro releases and > more minor > > releases. i.e. instead of Ant 1.6.3, we would go from HEAD > and call it > > Ant 1.7 even though it may not contain any significant new features. > > Semi-automated repeated CVS merges between branches are very prone > to issues. Manual merges are prone to the human error factor too ;-) > > Another more controversial alternative would be to use a CM tool > with better merging abilities, and Subversion comes to mind of course. > From the little I've read, it seems that SVN does merges > better, without > the need for tags, thanks to its global versioning of the whole repo. > > Is there an official line of the ASF about SVN? And are there any > Apache projects which have switched to SVN? Just wondering, --DD > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
