From: Travis O. <oli...@ie...> - 2006-07-27 14:37:09
|
Robert Kern wrote: > Let's not make a branch until 1.0 is actually out and we are making 1.0.x > releases. It's confusing since at the moment, the trunk is not getting any > activity. It's not the main trunk of development. Some people have already come > to the list confused about where to get the code with fixes to the bugs they've > reported. The branches are getting too far diverged at the moment. It's going to > be hell merging them, and we are going to lose the revision history when we do > merge. The revision messages won't be joined with the the changes they talk about. > This is sound reasoning. I was way too pre-mature in making a ver1.0 branch. I had thought that backward incompatible changes would go into the trunk and the ver1.0 branch would be more or less stable. But this was not a wise move as I'm beginning to see. If somebody wants to experiment with a change, they can make a branch... The trunk should be the main line of development. I apologize for my stumbling over these software-release issues. I'm really not a software-manager at heart --- do we have any volunteers for a release-manager :-) I'm going to re-number the trunk to 0.9.9. I'm also going to delete the ver1.0 branch and chalk that up to a learning mistake. We will make a 1.0 branch for building maintenance releases from as soon as 1.0 comes out officially which won't be for a few months --- Let's target the first of October, for now. -Travis |