On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:51 AM, Matt Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Matt Benson > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Good questions! I suppose that's the thing to > > do, > > > with the understanding that my pushing this makes > > me > > > liable if I don't get off my ass and do what's > > needed > > > to get that branch releasable, huh? > > > > > > > So, how will this work if we want to promote this > > thing to the proper? > > To be honest, I'm not sure why [functor] was never > ready to graduate, but I intend to get a better idea > of its true status during the next week or so... > > > > Do we promote based on the 1.0 code? > > If for some reason the generics branch is ready before > the 1.0, perhaps we can cross that bridge when we come > to it? > > > > We can't do a > > release out of > > the sandbox, correct? > > Correct. > > > > Or, does it even matter that > > we'll have two > > active branches (trunk and the non-genericized 1.0 > > branch) before > > promotion? > > I don't see that it really matters. :)
I can't help thinking it would be better to just work on one copy initially (i.e. trunk) - review whats there and do as much work as possible before doing the generics stuff. Otherwise you're just going to be duplicating each other. I just noticed Matt added checkstyle rules to the branch - thats a good example of something that would be good to sort out only once. Niall > > This is somewhat of a weird situation. > > > Agreed. :) I specialize in those. > > -Matt > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
