I agree that we should sync 2.1 with master and use it for future 2.1
releases and use master fir development.
On 2/18/20 1:42 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 12:59 PM -0500 Ken Murchison
<mu...@fastmail.com> wrote:
I can tell you that 2.1.27 was built from master. The 2.1 branch might
have been created in anticipation of master becoming the dev branch for
2.2, but I don't know that for certain.
Looking at the branches in git, I don't think the 2.1 branch was
created for 2.2 development. In fact, looking at the git history, you
can see that the cyrus-sasl-2.1 branch was used for creating releases
in the 2.1 series up until 2.1.25:
commit 89173b72832d668f74d820bd19d9b66f3578cf21 (tag: cyrus-sasl-2.1.25)
Author: Ken Murchison <mu...@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Wed Sep 7 16:09:40 2011 +0000
Fixed 3 memory leaks in SCRAM
However, the two releases after that point abandoned the 2.1 release
branch for unknown reasons. It is of course quite common for there to
be a release branch and then have master be the development branch.
I'm unclear why the cyrus-sasl project veered away from this.
This generally leaves me unsure of where to go forward here. I
personally am not fond of cutting releases off of development
branches. Do we want to sync the 2.1 branch up with master, and then
go back to using it for releases, and keeping master for development
(and potentially cut a 2.2 branch from it at some point, assuming
there's ever that level of devlopment) ? Do we just abandoned the
idea of having a release branch and future feature development, and
use master for everything? etc.
Regards,
Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount
Product Architect
Symas Corporation
Packaged, certified, and supported LDAP solutions powered by OpenLDAP:
<http://www.symas.com>
--
Ken Murchison
Cyrus Development Team
Fastmail US LLC
