I am fine with a temporary unstable 'master'.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 6:05 PM, Paul Merlin <[email protected]> wrote: > Niclas Hedhman a écrit : > > And I tried to remove 'master', but that is also not allowed. > :) > > > One choice is to ignore the problem and it is auto-fixed at 2.1 release, > > which we want to do soon anyway. > That would be the easier path, only drawback being that until 2.1 the > master branch is not 'stable' as advertised. > > > Another is to not consider 'master' the stable one, but create a new > branch > > (such as 'latest' or 'releases') and change the docs for that. > Yes but we can't remove master, so what about it? > > > So, yeah... Not sure what is the the better choice here. > I'd lean towards ignoring the problem and focusing on 2.1 as our first > Apache release. > > WDYT? > > /Paul > > -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://zest.apache.org/qi4j <http://www.qi4j.org> - New Energy for Java
