+1

Jeff

Le mer. 1 mai 2019 à 14:07, Jonathan Valliere <john...@apache.org> a écrit :

> Is that it? Just two votes?
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 2:13 PM Jonathan Valliere <jon.valli...@emoten.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 2:10 PM Emmanuel Lecharny <elecha...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Le jeu. 25 avr. 2019 à 18:27, Jonathan Valliere <john...@apache.org> a
> >> écrit :
> >>
> >> > I'd like to call a vote on the following proposal for branch changes
> for
> >> > MINA.
> >> >
> >> >    1. Rename 2.1 to 2.1.X because 2.1 is our root branch from which
> >> 2.1.1
> >> >    and 2.1.2 spawn.  The HEAD of 2.1.X should represent the current
> >> > unreleased
> >> >    version in the 2.1 track.
> >>
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >>
> >> >    2. Rename 2.0 to 2.0.X because 2.0 is our root branch from which
> >> 2.0.16+
> >> >    spawn.  The HEAD of 2.0.X should represent the current unreleased
> >> > version
> >> >    in the 2.0 track.
> >>
> >>
> >> +1
> >>
> >>
> >> >    3. Remove 2.1.0 because it tracks 2.1.X and prefer to use tags for
> >> >    specific versions unless there is a specific reason why new
> >> maintenance
> >> >    branches are
> >>
> >>
> >> Being far from my computer, I can’t check what this 2.1.0 is. >From the
> top
> >> of my head, it’s a tag, but if it’s a branch, then it’s bad. We need to
> >> clarify that.
> >
> >
> > 2.1.0 is a branch currently.  Update proposal to remove the 2.1.0 branch
> > after making sure 2.1 and 2.1.0 are at the same HEAD.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks for the proposals, they make a lot if sense.
> >>
> >> We probably should also decide something related to 3.X: I don’t think
> it
> >> will go any farther, and we may need this 3.X for the future evolutions.
> >> --
> >> Regards,
> >> Cordialement,
> >> Emmanuel Lécharny
> >> www.iktek.com
> >>
> > --
> >
> > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this email message and any
> > attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain
> > confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected
> > from disclosure.
> >
>

Reply via email to