On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Conor MacNeill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
painful. > 2. Keep going as we do now but make sure branches are shorter > lived. As long as we agree that there can be a 1.10 after 1.9.2 I'm fine with it. > 3. Move to a model where bug fixes are applied to branches *only* > and merged in a more controlled fashion either at release points or > on a more regular basic (weekly, monthly). Wearing my Gump hat, this sounds really bad. If we introduce a new feature in Ant we use Gump to testdrive it for backwards compatibility. Having known bugs inside the test drive doesn't seem a good idea to me. Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
