qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alan Conway <acon...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: C++ 0-9 merge heads up
Date Wed, 07 Mar 2007 16:50:32 GMT
Martin Ritchie wrote:
> On 07/03/07, Alan Conway <aconway@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Robert Godfrey wrote:
>> > I'm just not sure whether (procedurally) we can make an M2 branch 
>> before
>> > we've given people enough time to vote for an M2 release...
>
>> Making a branch doesn't commit us to a release, it doesn't even force
>> anybody to use the branch. It just means the current state of C++ is
>> stored away safely so I can move on trunk while the Java issues are
>> resolved.  As long as the Java 0-9 isn't merged it'll be trivial to
>> merge any Java trunk work done in the next 5-7 days to the M2 branch as
>> there'll be no changes on it.
>
> This statement concerns me. The project is in Apache to make releases
> and build a community. If we are simply tagging our repository which
> contains a lot of hard effort by a lot of people and moving on with
> the next version which also contains a lot of effort by even more
> people then we are running a real risk of fracturing the community. If
> we, as a community feel it worth while to do a release then we need to
> push that goal through or we will not be allowed to graduate from the
> incubator.
Agree with everything you said, don't understand why the statement 
concerns you or what the risk is. I intend to work hard on both the M2 
release and the future 0.9, 0.10 versions. To do that I need a place to 
save the state of C++ now as the basis of the M2 release so I can do 
reorganization and 0.9 work on trunk. I understand that the timing is 
different for Java, I don't see any reason why we have to tie the two 
together. My aim in making a branch early is to protect the M2 release 
while allowing forward motion of C++ on trunk.

Cheers,
Alan.

Mime
View raw message