[ODE] New release?

[J. Perkins]

On 3/15/06, Jon Watte (ODE) <hplus-ode at mindcontrol.org> wrote:
> What I want is to keep a HEAD that's really quite stable, and only gets
> critical bug fixes, and an UNSTABLE where seemingly good patches get
> committed. The talk about "killing" HEAD doesn't make sense, because
> then there's no distinction between release branch and development branch.

I am trying to give you exactly what you want. What I am proposing is
to move UNSTABLE to HEAD and make that the location for on-going
development. Then I will create an 0.6.0 release branch which will
only take bug fixes and changes related to getting a release out the
door. After 0.6 is released, we can work on new features for a while
and then create an 0.7 branch. New development is always on the trunk.
The release branches will be kept, so you can decide when to make the
switch to the new version. Of course, the point of all of this is to
start making regular releases again, so people who need stability will
have that option as well.

When I talk about moving UNSTABLE to HEAD, I really mean importing
UNSTABLE (with its complete version history) into Subversion as the
new trunk. CVS will remain in place but would no longer track new
changes. I want to move to Subversion because it has better support
for branching and tagging, finer-grained access control, handles
directory level changes, and is accessible over HTTP. I'm looking for
feedback on this approach.

Jason