Richard Heck wrote: > Then I propose to go ahead and create 2.3-staging and 2.2.1-staging now. > The former will be open for all commits, as if it were master, and will > eventually be merged to master; the latter will be treated as stable and > will be managed by me alongside 2.1.x.
Why so many branches? This is too complicated for me (mentally, not technically). What is master supposed to be when we have both 2.3-staging and 2.2-staging? I would like to have one branch for 2.3 development and one branch for 2.2 development, but not more. I have a slight preference for continuing 2.2 development in master and having a 2.3-staging branch, which gets merged to master once 2.2.0 is released, but the other mentioned alternatives would also be fine with me as long as there are not more than two branches involved. Georg PS: Since RC is "Release candidate" we should IMHO only allow really critical bug fixes between RC1 and 2.2.0 final. In particular I think we should not do a RC2.
