Re: [STATUS] Wed Jun 4 16:04:54 EDT 1997

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

Marc Slemko wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 5 Jun 1997, Randy Terbush wrote:
> 
> > I'm willing to do the branch and roll, but would like to read 
> > proper procedure from a knowledgable CVS person before doing this 
> > for the release.
> 
> I'm not sure we should branch.  Someone brought up the suggestion of using
> using a seperate module for 2.0 source and many agreed I think.
> 
> CVS doesn't really know about branches, they are just an illusion.  It can
> be quite confusing, especially for people that don't use them much.
> Having it branched makes it far easier to compare source between 1.2 and
> 2.0 code, but at the expense of making working with 1.2 code much more
> difficult.
> 
> Personally, I would just as well have the tree branch and keep it
> together, but I probably have a better understanding of CVS branches than
> some...
> 

I think that the way it was done with the 1.1.3 -> 1.2 branching
was perfect and I see no reason to change it.

I vote for branching as before. For those who don't wnat to
worry about 1.2 anymore, they will see no change at all.
And, no matter what we think right now, 2.0 will grow out of
1.2 code... does anyone really foresee a total rewrite of the
code from scratch? I don't.


-- 
====================================================================
      Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services
     jim@jaguNET.com           |       http://www.jaguNET.com/
            "Look at me! I'm wearing a cardboard belt!"