Only if the release branches didn't bring over other changes too. Unlike some of our other repo's this one has many balls in the air at a time.
-Mark On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 1:25 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > On 8/22/14 9:47 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > > >Hi, > > > >> I think for already released products, master should only get updated > >>with > >> a released copy. But it is a good question about whether the donations > >> should have been dropped into master as the master copy of the > >>ip-cleared > >> donation, even if they weren't ready to go. So that's why I'm ok with > >>you > >> merging the whole thing. > > > >Fair enough done - this is going to get tricky in the future however. > > > >And there will be some stuff that probably strictly shouldn't be in > >master ie mavinizer and blaze DS unreleased changes. > Agreed, and so, lesson learned: this is why we do need to cut release > branches even if there isn't much going on in develop branch. Or would > the release branch also contain these blazeDS and the merge would have > tired to merge them? Or does a merge only apply diffs from the branch > point so it would work? > > And also, motivation to release those yet-to-be-released entities. I saw > Chris mention he might try to do BlazeDS> > > -Alex > >
