Pierrick LE GALL a écrit :
Hi koha-devel,
On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:15:50 +0100 Paul POULAIN <paul.poulain@free.fr> wrote:
In rel_2_2, kados, hdl and other commited a lot of changes. There is still no changes in the DB, but I think we should call this version 2.4.0
Concerning CVS, how to do you plan to manage branches and releases? Will you create a new branch rel_2_4 and a release R_2_4_0 on it? Or will you prefer creating a release R_2_4_0 on branch rel_2_2?
The former would be cleaner, since we would be able to continue bug fixing on rel_2_2. In my opinion, having a release 2.4.0 on a branch 2.2 is very confusing :-/ Maybe only "rel_2_2" CVS branch name is inappropriate, but we can't change it (CVS can't rename existing branchs).
You're right Pierrick. The only problem being that we have only 1 stable branch. And i'm not sure we have enough strengths to have 2 :-( I announced when releasing 2.2.5 that it would be the last 2.2 with some new features. 2.2.6 was supposed to be bugfix only. Hélas, joshua & chris hacked a lot of things here (why ? I don't know. Maybe it's to introduce new features that can't wait for 3.0), thus my "problem". (The next problem will be to port the improvements to head...) I think we had better stay with rel_2_2 branch code. But i'll tag the 2.4.0 with a 2.4.0 tag. Question to chris & joshua : do you think you'll add new features after 2.4.0 or can you promise you'll work only on HEAD ? ;-) (that would be the best solution, imho) -- Paul POULAIN et Henri Damien LAURENT Consultants indépendants en logiciels libres et bibliothéconomie (http://www.koha-fr.org)