On 14 Jun 2010, at 19:07, J Chris Anderson wrote: > > On Jun 13, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Adam Kocoloski wrote: >>> >> >> The 0.11 branch still feels weird to me. I thought commits on release >> branches were supposed to be bugfixes only. With 0.11.x the criteria seem >> to be >> >> 1) bugfixes >> 2) anything committed to trunk by Damien >> 3) anything else needed to make 2) merge cleanly >> >> If 1.0 is supposed to be 0.11 + bugfixes + Damien's work, rather than 0.11 + >> bugfixes, shouldn't we have a /branches/1.0.x for that? >> > > Agreed -- that's why I suggested branching 1.0.x from trunk. There are a > couple of patches I've been working on over the weekend without internet, > that I need to put into trunk before we can branch. I will do that today or > tomorrow, then I will be ready to branch 1.0. > > To make sure I understand... did we agree to branch 1.0 from trunk?
Nope, we agreed to cut 1.0 from 0.11.x. 0.11.x was in disarray for a brief time but my latest commits are supposed to have fixed that. I think we should go ahead and branch 1.0.x from 0.11.x after applying and merging what we believe are the last patches that need to make it into 1,0.0. I should be ready with this for my end by tomorrow night CEST. (You did propose to cut 1.0.x from trunk last week, but we didn't yet decide on it. Since that was spurred by the merge problems that I fixed now I think we can keep going with the old plan). Cheers Jan -- > > Chris > >> Regardless, the important thing is that the codebase for 1.0 is stable and >> working. Jan's 0.11.x-monster-fix satisfies that. Good work! >> >> Adam >> >
