From: Martin Sevior (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Apr 25 2002 - 02:09:58 EDT
I actually liked your first idea of just forking abi to abi-1.2,
abiword-plugins to abiword-plugins-1.2 abd hiving development on the hEAD
branch of both of those. That way I can cleanly seperate both sets in my
local system and trvially do builds against the 1.0 module or 1.2 module.
BTW the sort of changes I see we're talking about here justify naming the
next stable release abiword-2 not just 1.2.
There will be substantial changes.
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Hubert Figuiere wrote:
> I rethought about the development plans I posted recently.
> It seems stupid to create a new tree for abi1.2. Mozilla an OpenOffice
> are managed in CVS with trouble. So why not us.
> So here is the new plan:
> 1.0.1 will soon be release due to late bugs. Instead of just tagging
> it, we should fork it.
> 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.
> Each 1.1.x release (unstable) will lead to a branch that'll end with
> the release.
> 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).
> Any comment ?
> I may provide soon a diagram to show that :-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Apr 25 2002 - 02:11:41 EDT