[torquedev] binary change to .JB files in 2.3-fixes branch!

[Josh Butikofer]

Chris,

I think your proposal sounds reasonable and is what we are aiming to achieve.

I think that 2.4 allowed too aggressive of development, making it harder to 
test/stabilize in time to make the only branch that can accept features AND 
still provide the needed reliability. A lot of this has been ironed out, and it 
is much better, but to avoid this in the future we do need a longer-term branch 
that we can put "scary" stuff (3.0) and keep the next 2.x available for 
features/enhancements as you say.

Josh Butikofer
Cluster Resources, Inc.
#############################


Chris Samuel wrote:
> ----- "Josh Butikofer" <josh at clusterresources.com> wrote:
> 
>> Glen and everyone else who's interested:
> 
> Hiya!   Oh stop groaning at the back.. ;-)
> 
>> Let me know if I'm wrong, but it seems the core of what you are
>> suggesting is this:
>>
>> * TORQUE 2.3.x should not include anything but minor bug fixes.
> 
> Well, bug fixes in general, I'm not sure if they should just be minor!
> 
>> * All new features, enhancements, and more intrusive bug fixes should
>> go into a non-stable branch, which is now called trunk.
> 
> Can I suggest instead:
> 
> * Non-intrusive (backwardly compatible) new features should get
> added to a branch which would be 2.4.
> 
> * Major rewrites, changes that break backwards compatibility, etc,
> should go into trunk and (eventually) become 3.0.
> 
> Hopefully that may strike a middle ground that would keep
> both us devs (not that I've been much of a dev recently)
> and the CR customers happy..
> 
> How does that sound to people ?
>