Interesting enough to seek some feedback.
My initial reaction is:
- you can't maintain code which isn't covered by CLAs
- 'unconvered' code may sit in our repo for code history purposes*
- The 2.6x branch should be svn rm'd
- No release may ever be done from the 2.6x branch
Given that SpamAssassin was already a high profile project before it
came here, which has to maintain continueity, I'm inclined to say that
they should do a last 2.6x release (which will not be ASL, and not be
endorsed by the ASF).
Thoughts?
Sander
*) Not so sure about this one.
--- Begin Message ---
On Mon, Jan 05, 2004 at 10:33:17PM +0100, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
> Hm. Can't we just develop in the 2.6x branch in SVN? That's what I meant
> when I said "being picky" about that stuff: The non-CLA'd stuff is in the
> Apache SVN anyway because we imported the whole history. So to me it
> doesn't really make a difference where we work as long as we don't touch
> the non-CLA'd stuff. The only difference it should make is that we can't
> switch licenses yet and don't have the ASF "protection" for that code.
Yeah, that's what I've been saying. The repo was moved, we should just
stick with SVN.
--
Randomly Generated Tagline:
"Euler's Identity ... the Sine/Cosine thing..." - Instructor Dean
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
