On 09/24/2014 09:51 AM, Brian Bouterse wrote: > Even so, we should track the work for X and Y releases separately by creating > a 2.6-dev branch and letting master be 3.0. There really isn't a downside > except one additional merge, but I think it's worth it. The upside is we can > always check in work when we need to, where we need to, and allow X and Y > releases to mature until they are ready to be released. That seems worth the > cost of one additional merge. What do you think?
My hesitation is due to us not being sure whether there will be a 2.6 release. I'd prefer not to create 2.6 branches if we aren't going to make a 2.6 release (i.e., if 3.0 is next). I'd prefer to wait it out and see what happens first.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pulp-list mailing list Pulp-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
