On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 03:23:07PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote: > On 04/12/2016 03:09 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > >Le 12/04/16 20:19, Pavel Sanda a �crit : > >>Scott Kostyshak wrote: > >>>>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. > >> > >>One detail you should also understand is that people will pay less > >>attention to you once master is free :)
Yes I'm sure everyone will be happy and rightly so. I think it is a question of choosing between different ways of allowing development to continue. > > > >My assumption is that the effort to get 2.2.0 out now is comparable to the > >normal stable branch handling. But I may be wrong. > > This seems right to me +1 > but it is Scott's call, as you said. I doubt it > matters in practice whether we branch 2.2.x or introduce a staging branch. I agree that it doesn't really matter so I prefer what I think is more conventional. I'll explain more below. > >I have not seen that being all blocked on master made bug resolution > >frantic. > > I suspect bugs that arise for 2.2.0 now will be reported to one of the list, > and we'll deal with them the way we dealt with the Flex regression. +1 Let's focus on the following options: A) Branch 2.3.staging from master and continue "unstable" development on 2.3.staging. After 2.2.0 is released we merge 2.3.staging into master. B) Branch 2.2.x from master and continue "unstable" development on master. To me it does not feel right that the commits in-between 2.2.0rc1 and 2.2.0 final would not *necessarily* be in master's commit history. I think this breaks precedent. Although we would in practice cherry-pick from one to the other, this would not be true for the commits that are specific to the 2.2.0 release. Specifically, to me it feels right that fde16219 is in master's commit history. I don't see the advantage of B over A and I don't think we have done B before. JMarc or anyone else would you have a strong opinion _against_ going with A over B? Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
