+1 for 3.1 On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 3:28 PM Jeremy Mitchell <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm good with a 3.1 (derived from 3.0.x) with Derek still the RM and then > 4.0 (derived from master) with Rawlin? as the RM. > > And everything rawlin said makes perfect sense to me. > > Jeremy > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 12:46 PM Rawlin Peters <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > +1 on doing a 3.1 before a 4.0. > > > > It sounds like the plan for a 3.1 release would be the following -- > > just to be clear it wouldn't be cut from the head of master? > > 1. create a new 3.1.x branch off the current head of 3.0.x > > 2. open PRs to backport pertinent features/bugfixes from master to the > > 3.1.x branch, tagged with a 3.1 milestone > > 3. create a 3.1 release from the head of the 3.1.x branch once all 3.1 > > milestone PRs have been merged > > > > If so, we should create a 3.1 milestone and start opening backport PRs > > with it (probably run the bugfix/feature by the list before doing the > > cherry-pick). In fact, there is already a 3.0.2 milestone (which a > > couple PRs have been backported to 3.0.x under); we should just change > > that milestone from 3.0.2 to 3.1 since we're going to do a 3.1 > > instead. > > > > - Rawlin > > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 11:47 AM Dave Neuman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Here Derek, > > > I think we should do a 3.1 release before 4.0. Let's work to define > the > > > scope and keep it as small as possible. I think Steve had a few things > > he > > > wanted to get in, does anyone else? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 11:42 AM Gelinas, Derek < > > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi all, I’m curious if anyone has any strong feelings on releasing a > > final > > > > 3.1 build with bug fixes and maybe a feature or two before we start > > working > > > > on the 4.0 release. Otherwise, the plan will likely be to go > straight > > to > > > > 4.0. > > > > > > > > Derek > > > > > > >
