On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 06:29:14PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 12/04/16 18:20, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : > >On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:57:40AM -0400, Richard Heck wrote: > >>On 04/12/2016 04:42 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > >>>Le 12/04/2016 04:09, Richard Heck a écrit : > >>>>I propose to create a 2.3.staging branch so development can proceed. We > >>>>did this with this 2.1 cycle. Alternatively, we could create a > >>>>2.2.0.fixes branch, from which 2.2.0 will be tagged, and you can have > >>>>full control over that. > >>> > >>>Why don't we branch 2.2.x right now and resume working on master? Do > >>>you think that the amount of work until 2.2.0 is so large that this > >>>would entail work duplication? > >> > >>I thought about that, too, but was reluctant to suggest it for fear of > >>starting a flame war. But it would be a natural thing to do at this point. > >> > >>Scott, do you have views about this? > > > >Would we then merge 2.2.x into master at the 2.2.0 release? > > No we would manage that like we manage stable right now, by backporting one > by one. It is like considering that rc1 is 2.2.-1 and that we already work > with the stable branch, instead of beginning at 2.2.0 time.
So in the commit history of master we will not see the final 2.2.0 release (e.g. fde16219 for 2.1.0)? Have we done this before in this way? > It is your call, anyway. It or something similar seems like a good idea to me. I just want to make sure I understand the details. Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
