Michael Richardson wrote:
"Chris" == Chris Travers<..hidden..> writes:Chris> I think we should look at branching LedgerSMB 1.3 off this Chris> next week since the basic ideas of 2.0 are starting to take Chris> shape. What do folks think? I think that it's a recipe for suicide of the project. You can't start 2.0 while 1.3 is essentially still alpha, requiring way too much half-documented expertise to install and configure.
I was going to sit this one out, but it seems I'm not going to be a lone voice in the wilderness, after all.
I think it's insane to start development on 2.0 until 1.3 can actually be installed by a new user following the instructions. Unless you intend that 1.3 will *never* be a public release...?
This goes double, triple or maybe quadruple if you are still supporting 1.2.x at the same time.
That's not to say that development of 1.3 shouldn't take place with a view towards 2.0; it's perfectly reasonable to refactor parts of 1.3 to make the eventual 2.0 branch easier.
Maybe it's a sign that SVN is no longer a useful SCM for the project, as other systems would let you have a provide branch without so much effort.
I don't follow this logic. SVN is perfectly capable of branching; merging and back-porting isn't as easy between branches as, say, git or bzr, but it looks like the codebases of 1.2, 1.3 and 2.0 will be sufficiently different that it would be highly unlikely patches could ever apply to multiple branches at the same time anyway.
-- -Adam Thompson <..hidden..> (204) 291-7950