This makes sense to me, unless there are features on the trunk that
absolutely should not be in 1.5. This seems to be a far more manageable way
to handle 1.5 - much less error prone, and much less time consuming.
On 12/10/09 8:55 AM, "Keller, Rainer H." <keller_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> WHAT: Branch (again) for v1.5
> WHY: Heavy divergence of trunk vs. v1.5 with few associated CMR's
> WHERE: v1.5
> WHEN: Tuesday, Dec. 15th 2009 after the teleconference
> TIMEOUT: Dec. 15th, 2009
> More Details
> With v1.4 finally being out in the wild, we'd like to advance on the feature
> release v1.5.
> There have been some quite radical changes on the trunk recently that make the
> tracking of divergence vs. v1.5 needlessly hard (please see the overview of
> action items patches if we do not follow this RFC). Paired with this, most
> developers have not been filing v1.5 CMR's; someone would need to chase down
> everything that has happened on the trunk and "encourage" developers to then
> file relevant CMRs.
> Re-branching will likely cause some "I told you so"'s. We tip our hats to
> acknowledge that you were right. :-)
> We hope that re-branching, paired with the new automatically-create-CMRs-via-
> SVN-commit-messages feature will help keep a new v1.5 branch in much better
> The most relevant question for the discussion would seem to be: is there
> anything on the trunk that is not intended for v1.5? Let's discuss next
> Regardless of whether we re-branch or not, we'd like to ask all to ramp up
> v1.5 MTT-testing, possibly even by adding other test applications.
> With best regards,
> Jeff and Rainer