Hi,
Stefan, it sounds you would like to stop development on the 1.6 branch.
If we do so, it will take a long while before everybody thinks there are enough changes
to warrant a 1.7.0.
Where I am working we are already using two fixes of 1.6.2 (one concerning
the Zip task, and another one concerning classloaders). If I could swap this "ant 1.6.2 plus two patches"
against an official 1.6.3, it would be cool.
Cheers,
Antoine
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
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]
