You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to doxia-dev@maven.apache.org by Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org> on 2007/10/21 00:36:13 UTC
What should go into doxia 1.0-alpha-10?
Hi
As you might have seen from the commit messages, I have created branches
in doxia and doxia-sitetools for future alpha releases. The branches
were created from 1.0-alpha-9. On the branches the following stuff has
been merged in from trunk:
- DOXIA-156
- DOXIA-161
- The dependency cleanup in the poms
Do we need anything else?
--
Dennis Lundberg
Re: What should go into doxia 1.0-alpha-10?
Posted by Lukas Theussl <lt...@apache.org>.
Gaah, nothing happens on this list for months, but just take three days
of vacation and see what you miss... ;)
I don't think anything should go into alpha-10 except the things you
need to make the plugins work, the list below looks fine for me.
-Lukas
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> Hi
>
> As you might have seen from the commit messages, I have created branches
> in doxia and doxia-sitetools for future alpha releases. The branches
> were created from 1.0-alpha-9. On the branches the following stuff has
> been merged in from trunk:
>
> - DOXIA-156
> - DOXIA-161
> - The dependency cleanup in the poms
>
> Do we need anything else?
>
Re: What should go into doxia 1.0-alpha-10?
Posted by Lukas Theussl <lt...@apache.org>.
[somehow I managed to misplace your mail, sorry for the delay]
Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> I like your comments but let me argue a bit ;)
arguing is good! :)
>
> - what is what makes something "stable" ? dramatic API changes can go
> in 2.0, 3.0,... they don't need to go before 1.0 (if not there would
> never be any 1.0 final in any project)
Major API changes IMO can go anywhere except point/bug-fix versions of
stable releases. I agree that we don't *have* to put everything into
1.0. However, fact is that current doxia is really just useful for doing
one thing: translate apt and fml into xhtml, which is the maven use
case. Try to do anything else and you're sure to run into trouble. Just
look at the issues people have eg with twiki and confluence modules.
My initial motivation for getting involved with doxia was to write a pdf
plugin for m2. The current sandbox version is basically ready by itself,
but it's unusable in practice because of serveral shortcomings of doxia
in other places (DOXIA-148, DOXIA-183). Doxia promises to be a
multi-format content generation framework, as long as it doesn't live up
to this promise, it doesn't deserve a 1.0 release IMO.
> - if something has been out for months/years and did not change
> drastically, maybe should be considered stable
So all you have to do to make a crappy product stable is sit back and
wait long enough? ;)
>
> - being used Maven "stable" releases for 2+ years doesn't mean it's stable?
> or
> - if it's not stable maybe we shouldn't be using it in stable versions of Maven?
Personally, I would go with the latter ;) But as I said, Doxia is all
geared to work with Maven (the site-generating plugins), if that's all
it is meant to do, then you can consider it stable. But I don't think
that's all it is about.
>
> I just think there's a history of aversion to final releases that we
> should get over
I agree. There has to be a point where you need to let your baby go, but
not before it's able to support itself... My expectation is that we have
at most one beta and maybe some rc's before 1.0-final.
Cheers,
-Lukas
>
>
> On 10/25/07, Lukas Theussl <lt...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>Carlos Sanchez wrote:
>>
>>>you guys realize that final versions of Maven have been using Doxia
>>>for quite some time now and the fact that it's being called alpha as
>>>an excuse to make more API changes, which will affect the future
>>>development of maven, instead of evolving the API in a backwards
>>>compatible way, it's not a good idea at all
>>>
>>>my 0.02
>>>
>>
>>Doxia is not called alpha as an excuse for more API changes, it's called
>>alpha because it *is* alpha. Just have a look at the code. Have a look
>>at some open issues [eg DOXIA-38, DOXIA-63, DOXIA-78, DOXIA-99,
>>DOXIA-104,...] (and while your at it, tell me how to fix them without
>>affecting backwards compatibility :) ).
>>
>>It has been mentioned and dicussed a few times on this list, that we
>>intent to stabilize the API with the first beta release. It's at least
>>half a year ago now that I drew up the roadmap for it, and basically all
>>the bug-fix issues scheduled for beta-1 are potentially going to affect
>>backwards compatibility. [1]
>>
>>If people are not happy with that then let's put out alpha-10 as
>>1.0-final and call beta-1 2.0-alpha-30-SNAPSHOT. I'd feel uneasy voting
>>for the release, and my fear is that nothing will happen anymore after
>>that, but fine, if that is what makes people happy.
>>
>>I have tried to collect input on some of the issues on confluence [2]
>>and on this list. It is discouraging to see how people are ignoring such
>>discussions, but as soon as they realize that some changes are going to
>>require some work on their part, they come up with prophetic
>>trivialities ('backward-incompatible changes are baaad') and useless
>>statements ('we've been using it so long', so what?).
>>
>>Don't get me wrong, I'm just trying to get some constructive input,
>>because honestly, I would need it! :)
>>
>>-Lukas
>>
>>[1]
>>http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/DOXIA?report=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.project:roadmap-panel
>>[2] http://docs.codehaus.org/display/DOXIA/Home
>>
>>
>>
>>>On 10/21/07, Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Lukas has continued work on trunk for beta-1 which includes changes to
>>>>the api. These changes will *not* be in the doxia release that I plan do
>>>>shortly. This release, dubbed alpha-10, is a bug-fix release for
>>>>alpha-9. Alpha-9 has some bugs that makes it unusable for the site- and
>>>>project-info-reports-plugin.
>>>>
>>>>So the plan is to do a quick alpha-10 of doxia followed by releases of
>>>>site-plugin and project-info-reports-plugin.
>>>>
>>>>Carlos Sanchez wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>why still alpha?
>>>>>
>>>>>On 10/20/07, Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hi
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As you might have seen from the commit messages, I have created branches
>>>>>>in doxia and doxia-sitetools for future alpha releases. The branches
>>>>>>were created from 1.0-alpha-9. On the branches the following stuff has
>>>>>>been merged in from trunk:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>- DOXIA-156
>>>>>>- DOXIA-161
>>>>>>- The dependency cleanup in the poms
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Do we need anything else?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>Dennis Lundberg
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Dennis Lundberg
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: What should go into doxia 1.0-alpha-10?
Posted by Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org>.
I like your comments but let me argue a bit ;)
- what is what makes something "stable" ? dramatic API changes can go
in 2.0, 3.0,... they don't need to go before 1.0 (if not there would
never be any 1.0 final in any project)
- if something has been out for months/years and did not change
drastically, maybe should be considered stable
- being used Maven "stable" releases for 2+ years doesn't mean it's stable?
or
- if it's not stable maybe we shouldn't be using it in stable versions of Maven?
I just think there's a history of aversion to final releases that we
should get over
On 10/25/07, Lukas Theussl <lt...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> > you guys realize that final versions of Maven have been using Doxia
> > for quite some time now and the fact that it's being called alpha as
> > an excuse to make more API changes, which will affect the future
> > development of maven, instead of evolving the API in a backwards
> > compatible way, it's not a good idea at all
> >
> > my 0.02
> >
>
> Doxia is not called alpha as an excuse for more API changes, it's called
> alpha because it *is* alpha. Just have a look at the code. Have a look
> at some open issues [eg DOXIA-38, DOXIA-63, DOXIA-78, DOXIA-99,
> DOXIA-104,...] (and while your at it, tell me how to fix them without
> affecting backwards compatibility :) ).
>
> It has been mentioned and dicussed a few times on this list, that we
> intent to stabilize the API with the first beta release. It's at least
> half a year ago now that I drew up the roadmap for it, and basically all
> the bug-fix issues scheduled for beta-1 are potentially going to affect
> backwards compatibility. [1]
>
> If people are not happy with that then let's put out alpha-10 as
> 1.0-final and call beta-1 2.0-alpha-30-SNAPSHOT. I'd feel uneasy voting
> for the release, and my fear is that nothing will happen anymore after
> that, but fine, if that is what makes people happy.
>
> I have tried to collect input on some of the issues on confluence [2]
> and on this list. It is discouraging to see how people are ignoring such
> discussions, but as soon as they realize that some changes are going to
> require some work on their part, they come up with prophetic
> trivialities ('backward-incompatible changes are baaad') and useless
> statements ('we've been using it so long', so what?).
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm just trying to get some constructive input,
> because honestly, I would need it! :)
>
> -Lukas
>
> [1]
> http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/DOXIA?report=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.project:roadmap-panel
> [2] http://docs.codehaus.org/display/DOXIA/Home
>
>
> > On 10/21/07, Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >>Lukas has continued work on trunk for beta-1 which includes changes to
> >>the api. These changes will *not* be in the doxia release that I plan do
> >>shortly. This release, dubbed alpha-10, is a bug-fix release for
> >>alpha-9. Alpha-9 has some bugs that makes it unusable for the site- and
> >>project-info-reports-plugin.
> >>
> >>So the plan is to do a quick alpha-10 of doxia followed by releases of
> >>site-plugin and project-info-reports-plugin.
> >>
> >>Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> >>
> >>>why still alpha?
> >>>
> >>>On 10/20/07, Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Hi
> >>>>
> >>>>As you might have seen from the commit messages, I have created branches
> >>>>in doxia and doxia-sitetools for future alpha releases. The branches
> >>>>were created from 1.0-alpha-9. On the branches the following stuff has
> >>>>been merged in from trunk:
> >>>>
> >>>>- DOXIA-156
> >>>>- DOXIA-161
> >>>>- The dependency cleanup in the poms
> >>>>
> >>>>Do we need anything else?
> >>>>
> >>>>--
> >>>>Dennis Lundberg
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>--
> >>Dennis Lundberg
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
--
I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
-- The Princess Bride
Re: What should go into doxia 1.0-alpha-10?
Posted by Lukas Theussl <lt...@apache.org>.
Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> you guys realize that final versions of Maven have been using Doxia
> for quite some time now and the fact that it's being called alpha as
> an excuse to make more API changes, which will affect the future
> development of maven, instead of evolving the API in a backwards
> compatible way, it's not a good idea at all
>
> my 0.02
>
Doxia is not called alpha as an excuse for more API changes, it's called
alpha because it *is* alpha. Just have a look at the code. Have a look
at some open issues [eg DOXIA-38, DOXIA-63, DOXIA-78, DOXIA-99,
DOXIA-104,...] (and while your at it, tell me how to fix them without
affecting backwards compatibility :) ).
It has been mentioned and dicussed a few times on this list, that we
intent to stabilize the API with the first beta release. It's at least
half a year ago now that I drew up the roadmap for it, and basically all
the bug-fix issues scheduled for beta-1 are potentially going to affect
backwards compatibility. [1]
If people are not happy with that then let's put out alpha-10 as
1.0-final and call beta-1 2.0-alpha-30-SNAPSHOT. I'd feel uneasy voting
for the release, and my fear is that nothing will happen anymore after
that, but fine, if that is what makes people happy.
I have tried to collect input on some of the issues on confluence [2]
and on this list. It is discouraging to see how people are ignoring such
discussions, but as soon as they realize that some changes are going to
require some work on their part, they come up with prophetic
trivialities ('backward-incompatible changes are baaad') and useless
statements ('we've been using it so long', so what?).
Don't get me wrong, I'm just trying to get some constructive input,
because honestly, I would need it! :)
-Lukas
[1]
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/DOXIA?report=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.project:roadmap-panel
[2] http://docs.codehaus.org/display/DOXIA/Home
> On 10/21/07, Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>Lukas has continued work on trunk for beta-1 which includes changes to
>>the api. These changes will *not* be in the doxia release that I plan do
>>shortly. This release, dubbed alpha-10, is a bug-fix release for
>>alpha-9. Alpha-9 has some bugs that makes it unusable for the site- and
>>project-info-reports-plugin.
>>
>>So the plan is to do a quick alpha-10 of doxia followed by releases of
>>site-plugin and project-info-reports-plugin.
>>
>>Carlos Sanchez wrote:
>>
>>>why still alpha?
>>>
>>>On 10/20/07, Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi
>>>>
>>>>As you might have seen from the commit messages, I have created branches
>>>>in doxia and doxia-sitetools for future alpha releases. The branches
>>>>were created from 1.0-alpha-9. On the branches the following stuff has
>>>>been merged in from trunk:
>>>>
>>>>- DOXIA-156
>>>>- DOXIA-161
>>>>- The dependency cleanup in the poms
>>>>
>>>>Do we need anything else?
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Dennis Lundberg
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>--
>>Dennis Lundberg
>>
>
>
>
Re: What should go into doxia 1.0-alpha-10?
Posted by Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org>.
I agree on getting the release out, but we can't just go around the
underlying issue every time. For me the fact that it's being used in
several places for long time should make it stable, for coherence with
other projects using doxia.
On 10/21/07, Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org> wrote:
> I don't really care all that much what the versions are called. Some
> time ago a discussion was held on this list where a versioning strategy
> was drawn up. Basically it said that we should switch from alpha to beta
> when the api is stable. So I just go with the flow...
>
> What I'm interested in at the moment is getting a doxia release out that
> can be used in maven-site-plugin and maven-project-info-reports-plugin.
>
> Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> > you guys realize that final versions of Maven have been using Doxia
> > for quite some time now and the fact that it's being called alpha as
> > an excuse to make more API changes, which will affect the future
> > development of maven, instead of evolving the API in a backwards
> > compatible way, it's not a good idea at all
> >
> > my 0.02
> >
> > On 10/21/07, Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> Lukas has continued work on trunk for beta-1 which includes changes to
> >> the api. These changes will *not* be in the doxia release that I plan do
> >> shortly. This release, dubbed alpha-10, is a bug-fix release for
> >> alpha-9. Alpha-9 has some bugs that makes it unusable for the site- and
> >> project-info-reports-plugin.
> >>
> >> So the plan is to do a quick alpha-10 of doxia followed by releases of
> >> site-plugin and project-info-reports-plugin.
> >>
> >> Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> >>> why still alpha?
> >>>
> >>> On 10/20/07, Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>> Hi
> >>>>
> >>>> As you might have seen from the commit messages, I have created branches
> >>>> in doxia and doxia-sitetools for future alpha releases. The branches
> >>>> were created from 1.0-alpha-9. On the branches the following stuff has
> >>>> been merged in from trunk:
> >>>>
> >>>> - DOXIA-156
> >>>> - DOXIA-161
> >>>> - The dependency cleanup in the poms
> >>>>
> >>>> Do we need anything else?
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Dennis Lundberg
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dennis Lundberg
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Dennis Lundberg
>
--
I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
-- The Princess Bride
Re: What should go into doxia 1.0-alpha-10?
Posted by Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org>.
I don't really care all that much what the versions are called. Some
time ago a discussion was held on this list where a versioning strategy
was drawn up. Basically it said that we should switch from alpha to beta
when the api is stable. So I just go with the flow...
What I'm interested in at the moment is getting a doxia release out that
can be used in maven-site-plugin and maven-project-info-reports-plugin.
Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> you guys realize that final versions of Maven have been using Doxia
> for quite some time now and the fact that it's being called alpha as
> an excuse to make more API changes, which will affect the future
> development of maven, instead of evolving the API in a backwards
> compatible way, it's not a good idea at all
>
> my 0.02
>
> On 10/21/07, Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Lukas has continued work on trunk for beta-1 which includes changes to
>> the api. These changes will *not* be in the doxia release that I plan do
>> shortly. This release, dubbed alpha-10, is a bug-fix release for
>> alpha-9. Alpha-9 has some bugs that makes it unusable for the site- and
>> project-info-reports-plugin.
>>
>> So the plan is to do a quick alpha-10 of doxia followed by releases of
>> site-plugin and project-info-reports-plugin.
>>
>> Carlos Sanchez wrote:
>>> why still alpha?
>>>
>>> On 10/20/07, Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> As you might have seen from the commit messages, I have created branches
>>>> in doxia and doxia-sitetools for future alpha releases. The branches
>>>> were created from 1.0-alpha-9. On the branches the following stuff has
>>>> been merged in from trunk:
>>>>
>>>> - DOXIA-156
>>>> - DOXIA-161
>>>> - The dependency cleanup in the poms
>>>>
>>>> Do we need anything else?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dennis Lundberg
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Dennis Lundberg
>>
>
>
--
Dennis Lundberg
Re: What should go into doxia 1.0-alpha-10?
Posted by Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org>.
you guys realize that final versions of Maven have been using Doxia
for quite some time now and the fact that it's being called alpha as
an excuse to make more API changes, which will affect the future
development of maven, instead of evolving the API in a backwards
compatible way, it's not a good idea at all
my 0.02
On 10/21/07, Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org> wrote:
> Lukas has continued work on trunk for beta-1 which includes changes to
> the api. These changes will *not* be in the doxia release that I plan do
> shortly. This release, dubbed alpha-10, is a bug-fix release for
> alpha-9. Alpha-9 has some bugs that makes it unusable for the site- and
> project-info-reports-plugin.
>
> So the plan is to do a quick alpha-10 of doxia followed by releases of
> site-plugin and project-info-reports-plugin.
>
> Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> > why still alpha?
> >
> > On 10/20/07, Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> As you might have seen from the commit messages, I have created branches
> >> in doxia and doxia-sitetools for future alpha releases. The branches
> >> were created from 1.0-alpha-9. On the branches the following stuff has
> >> been merged in from trunk:
> >>
> >> - DOXIA-156
> >> - DOXIA-161
> >> - The dependency cleanup in the poms
> >>
> >> Do we need anything else?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Dennis Lundberg
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Dennis Lundberg
>
--
I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
-- The Princess Bride
Re: What should go into doxia 1.0-alpha-10?
Posted by Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org>.
Lukas has continued work on trunk for beta-1 which includes changes to
the api. These changes will *not* be in the doxia release that I plan do
shortly. This release, dubbed alpha-10, is a bug-fix release for
alpha-9. Alpha-9 has some bugs that makes it unusable for the site- and
project-info-reports-plugin.
So the plan is to do a quick alpha-10 of doxia followed by releases of
site-plugin and project-info-reports-plugin.
Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> why still alpha?
>
> On 10/20/07, Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> As you might have seen from the commit messages, I have created branches
>> in doxia and doxia-sitetools for future alpha releases. The branches
>> were created from 1.0-alpha-9. On the branches the following stuff has
>> been merged in from trunk:
>>
>> - DOXIA-156
>> - DOXIA-161
>> - The dependency cleanup in the poms
>>
>> Do we need anything else?
>>
>> --
>> Dennis Lundberg
>>
>
>
--
Dennis Lundberg
Re: What should go into doxia 1.0-alpha-10?
Posted by Carlos Sanchez <ca...@apache.org>.
why still alpha?
On 10/20/07, Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi
>
> As you might have seen from the commit messages, I have created branches
> in doxia and doxia-sitetools for future alpha releases. The branches
> were created from 1.0-alpha-9. On the branches the following stuff has
> been merged in from trunk:
>
> - DOXIA-156
> - DOXIA-161
> - The dependency cleanup in the poms
>
> Do we need anything else?
>
> --
> Dennis Lundberg
>
--
I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
-- The Princess Bride
Re: What should go into doxia 1.0-alpha-10?
Posted by Vincent Siveton <vi...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
2007/10/21, Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>:
>
> On 20 Oct 07, at 3:36 PM 20 Oct 07, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > As you might have seen from the commit messages, I have created
> > branches in doxia and doxia-sitetools for future alpha releases.
> > The branches were created from 1.0-alpha-9. On the branches the
> > following stuff has been merged in from trunk:
> >
> > - DOXIA-156
> > - DOXIA-161
> > - The dependency cleanup in the poms
> >
> > Do we need anything else?
> >
>
> Why don't you just release 1.0, or are there changes to the APIs you
We have several major issues before releasing 1.0, like logging or xsd/dtd.
FYI Lukas improved the sink api to support comments.
Cheers,
Vincent
> want to make? I know that Vincent wanted to add some things but I
> don't understand making branches from the alphas.
>
> > --
> > Dennis Lundberg
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Jason van Zyl
> Founder, Apache Maven
> jason at sonatype dot com
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
Re: What should go into doxia 1.0-alpha-10?
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>.
On 20 Oct 07, at 3:36 PM 20 Oct 07, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> Hi
>
> As you might have seen from the commit messages, I have created
> branches in doxia and doxia-sitetools for future alpha releases.
> The branches were created from 1.0-alpha-9. On the branches the
> following stuff has been merged in from trunk:
>
> - DOXIA-156
> - DOXIA-161
> - The dependency cleanup in the poms
>
> Do we need anything else?
>
Why don't you just release 1.0, or are there changes to the APIs you
want to make? I know that Vincent wanted to add some things but I
don't understand making branches from the alphas.
> --
> Dennis Lundberg
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------
Re: What should go into doxia 1.0-alpha-10?
Posted by Vincent Siveton <vi...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
2007/10/21, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>:
> On 10/20/07, Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > As you might have seen from the commit messages, I have created branches
> > in doxia and doxia-sitetools for future alpha releases. The branches
> > were created from 1.0-alpha-9. On the branches the following stuff has
> > been merged in from trunk:
>
> I haven't been following Doxia closely, but I don't understand
> branchign for 'future alpha releases'. Branching for 1.0 makes sense
> to me if trunk is moving on to 1.1 or 2.0. What's happening?
I guess that Dennis wants to release site and MPIR plugin in a near
future. Alpha-9 is buggy to renderer beauty reports and beta-1 is not
ready.
So, branch seems a good compromise to release plugins quickly.
Cheers,
Vincent
>
> --
> Wendy
>
Re: What should go into doxia 1.0-alpha-10?
Posted by Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>.
On 10/20/07, Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org> wrote:
> As you might have seen from the commit messages, I have created branches
> in doxia and doxia-sitetools for future alpha releases. The branches
> were created from 1.0-alpha-9. On the branches the following stuff has
> been merged in from trunk:
I haven't been following Doxia closely, but I don't understand
branchign for 'future alpha releases'. Branching for 1.0 makes sense
to me if trunk is moving on to 1.1 or 2.0. What's happening?
--
Wendy