On 05/23/2011 04:27 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 14:51, Hyrum K Wright <hy...@hyrumwright.org> wrote: >> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:48 AM, C. Michael Pilato >> <cmpil...@collab.net>wrote: >> >>> On 05/23/2011 02:25 PM, Hyrum K Wright wrote: >>>> The outcome of the hackathon was "we'll start alpha releases in June and >>>> branch when the blockers are gone" >>> >>> Hrm... that's not quite what I recall. But then, I remained somewhat >>> under-rested for the duration of the trip. :-) >>> >>> Our discussion of the default ra-dav implementation for 1.7.0 implied that >>> there could be open "blocker" issues even after we branch. (Because if any >>> of those blockers were serf-ish, that was our signal to restore ra_neon as >>> the default.) I hate to fuss over such fine details, but I believe we owe >>> it to ourselves to be clear on this general matter of branching. >> >> >> My recollection is that we essentially said that if there are blocking >> ra_serf issues when all the other blockers are gone, we'd flip back to >> ra_neon for the release. (So in a sense, the ra_serf blockers aren't really >> blockers at all.) > > Right. > > All non-serf blockers should be fixed before we branch. IOW, we get as > close to a release candidate as possible on trunk. (and if people want > to code new features, they should HIGHLY CONSIDER doing that on a > branch, for later reintegration).
Should we, then, move the Serf issues to 1.7-consider in the tracker? -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
