@Andrew - I wish we had used those names in the first place, as I agree it would avoid the confusion you mentioned.
@Jesse - you make a good point - this is a volunteer effort. Just speaking for myself, I don't have the bandwidth to commit any changes, do any support, provide any documentation, coordinate any releases, do regression testing, advertise/market, or do any emergency bug fixes to any more branches. Either of these changes have downstream effects: updating jenkins builds, changing documentation (or even documenting existing process/branching and release strategy as in the email). If someone wants to volunteer and make these changes (post 3.1/4.1 release, please), I'm +1. Thanks, James On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok, let's declare this vote as failed. > > > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Mujtaba Chohan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1. 4.0 named as 4.x or 4, 3.0 named as 3.x or 3 >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:34 AM, James Taylor <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > The original intent of the 4.0 branch was meant to host all 4.x >> > > releases. In general releases are compatible in the following manner: >> > > - a minor release must be deployed first on the server and then at any >> > > point later on the client. It will require a rolling restart, but no >> > > downtime. >> > > - a patch release may be deployed on the client and server in either >> > > order. If the patch requires the server jar to be deployed (which >> > > would likely be most of the time), it will require a rolling restart >> > > and no downtime will be required. >> > > - a major release may require downtime, as it may require the client >> > > and server side to both be deployed together. >> > > >> > >> > If you like I could make an alternate proposal to rename the branches to >> > branch-4 (and branch-3), then. >> > >> > Having a branch named '4.0' that builds releases 4.1.x is bound to >> confuse, >> > IMHO. >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Best regards, >> > >> > - Andy >> > >> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein >> > (via Tom White) >> > >> > > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White)
