On 6 April 2013 14:44, Dennis Reedy <dennis.re...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Apr 6, 2013, at 532AM, Dan Creswell wrote: > > > Right so we're into brutal tradeoffs aren't we? > > > > It's beginning to smell like none of the available branches are suitable > > for doing releases from. So we need a branch that is. > > AFAIK we are going to be releasing 2.2.1 from the 2.2 branch. Once > everything passes muster (Greg is running tests) we will tag the branch > 2.2.1 and release. > > > > > i.e. We shouldn't just pick a branch we have, we should get one sorted > and > > right now. > > > > What are our chances of pulling just qa changes out of qa-refactoring? > Have > > we at least got changesets that don't mix concurrency fixes with anything > > other than concurrency related changes to tests? > > You are talking 2.3.0 here? I though qa-trunk was being used for that? > > Peter is having some comms trouble looks like so I'll leave it at an open question:
Have we got a shared, agreed view of what unreleased code changes are in which branch? > Dennis
