[mapguide-internals] Branch for MGOS 2.0

[Tom Fukushima]

Trevor,
Please create a 2.0.0 tag at r3039.  That is, r3039 was the last submission that went into MGOS 2.0.0.

Thanks
Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Tom Fukushima
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 7:40 PM
To: MapGuide Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [mapguide-internals] Branch for MGOS 2.0

Hi Trevor,

Please hold off on the 2.0 tag until we know which version is the final release.

Thanks
Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Trevor Wekel
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 3:56 PM
To: MapGuide Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [mapguide-internals] Branch for MGOS 2.0

Ok.  I was just chatting with Tom and he would like to see a tag for 2.0.0.  Bruce is also fine with the tag.  So that's a +4.  Should I go ahead and create one?

Tim, did the 18.6 build come from trunk or branches/2.0.x?

Thanks,
Trevor

-----Original Message-----
From: mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Paul Spencer (External)
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 3:28 PM
To: MapGuide Internals Mail List
Subject: Re: [mapguide-internals] Branch for MGOS 2.0

I like the idea of tagging releases.  I have no opinion on betas and
RCs, but releases should be tagged.

Paul

On 22-Jan-08, at 5:23 PM, Jason Birch wrote:

> Everyone can discuss it, and the PSC can rubber stamp it ;)
>
> I'm thinking that users may be interested in building the released
> version of MapGuide, rather than just the latest state of the branch
> (with later fixes applied, etc).  As far as I can tell, there is no
> way
> of doing this for 1.2.0.  Tagging doesn't cost anything, and I think
> it's better to preserve the history than to regret not having done it
> later.
>
> Regardless of the specific tag used, I think it would be important to
> have a consistent convention so that we don't end up with a
> difficult-to-decipher directory listing like Boost's
>
> http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/tags/
>
> I'm not entirely sure whether it's worth tagging RC and Beta releases.
> If it is, I like Subversion's method:
>
> http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/tags/
>
> Jason
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Trevor Wekel
> Subject: RE: [MapGuide-internals] Branch for MGOS 2.0
>
>
> So are you looking for something like
> http://svn.osgeo.org/mapguide/tags/2.0.0 in Subversion?  Is this
> something the PSC should discuss?
> _______________________________________________
> mapguide-internals mailing list
> mapguide-internals at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals

Cheers,

Paul
__________________________________________

    Paul Spencer
    Chief Technology Officer
    DM Solutions Group Inc
    http://www.dmsolutions.ca/

_______________________________________________
mapguide-internals mailing list
mapguide-internals at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals
_______________________________________________
mapguide-internals mailing list
mapguide-internals at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals
_______________________________________________
mapguide-internals mailing list
mapguide-internals at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals