From: Christian Biesinger (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Apr 24 2002 - 17:52:24 EDT
On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 11:28:51PM +0200, Hubert Figuiere wrote:
> It seems stupid to create a new tree for abi1.2. Mozilla an OpenOffice
> are managed in CVS with trouble. So why not us.
Yeah... As a matter of fact, I have wondered why in the world one would
create a seperate tree instead of reusing the old one.
> The forked branch will be the 1.0.x branch, aka stable.
> The HEAD branch (trunk) will be the development branch.
> Each new 1.0.x release will lead to a new branch that will stop at
> each release. That way we can be sure to release a new stable version
> without to much annoyance.
Well, all 1.0.x releases should, imho, be made from the same branch,
optionally tagging the files when the actual release happens.
> Each 1.2.x release (1.2 stable) will lead to a branch that'll end with
> the release.
> Release 1.2 will branch, make the 1.0.x branch be closed and be the
> stable branch. At that time head branch will be the 1.3.x leading to
> 1.4 or 2.0 (depending on whether we want to copy Linux kernel
> versionning or not).
Sounds good too.
-- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Apr 24 2002 - 17:54:12 EDT