[crossfire] 2.0 release, was Re: Code restructuring

[Mark Wedel]

Alex Schultz wrote:
> Andrew Fuchs wrote:
>> Finally, i just want to note that our next release could be 1.10.0
>> instead of 2.0 if we need more time for cf2.0.
> And that is something I strongly believe should be the case. I
> personally do not believe that we are ready for 2.0 for a while (I'm
> thinking about 6 months or so if not a little more), and I believe in
> the meantime that we should do at least one release such as 1.10.0.
> However I believe the point of another release between 2.0 and now to
> gain more time, is fairly moot unless people can work on 2.0 in cvs
> starting fairly soon, hence, I believe that the best solution would be
> to create create a new cvs branch for working on 1.10.0, and then work
> on 2.0 things in the main branch. In terms of debate between making a
> branch for each major version, or each minor version, I personally don't
> have much preference on, but I feel that a branch of some sort is
> needed. Also, I believe the type of code restructure I mentioned a
> little earlier on the mailing list, should be something to target for
> 2.0, though I personally wait about a month to start work on it to allow
> people to get used to usage of the branches and possibly to apply
> pending patches that have been lying around for a while already.

  Yes - a stable-1-x branch is needed.

  One question not directly addressed on all of this are the different cvs trees.

server: pretty clear on major/stable branching

client: probably same thing (should the model be followed with client release 
matching server release number?

arch: Does this model make sense?  I suppose in some sense because as changes 
are made, that may enable or change behaviour of archetypes.  What about new 
archetypes that are release independent?

maps: Basically same question applies are for arch.  However, maps could be more 
a problem because patching/fixing maps could become very tedious.