Seems reasonable to me. I've updated the doc. -- Allen
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 20:43, Rudman Max wrote: > Can we name release branches using .x instead of .0? (Eg: roller_1.x) > Having a branch named roller_1.0 is a bit confusing to me as I would > assume it contains just that (minor) release. > > Max > > On Aug 9, 2005, at 4:44 PM, Allen Gilliland wrote: > > > I've put up some notes on how I think the release system could work > > so that it's somewhere more static than just buried in all this email. > > > > http://www.rollerweblogger.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=RollerReleasePlan > > > > Personally, I think this plan should work well for Roller and at > > the very least I think it's worth trying out. > > > > -- Allen > > > > > > On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 12:36, Lance Lavandowska wrote: > > > >> I echo Matt's comments. While I personally feel monthly might be too > >> aggressive, you two are going to be feeling the heat (in the > >> kitchen), > >> so in the end it's your decision to make. > >> > >> Lance > >> > >> On 8/9/05, Matt Raible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> Dave and Allen, > >>> > >>> You guys are obviously biased in your votes here - primarily because > >>> Roller is your job and you've been mandated to schedule the releases > >>> to more fit their work schedule. I don't blame you. > >>> > >>> You guys are contributing the most code, and handling all release > >>> aspects - so I believe the decision is up to you. I'm in favor of > >>> whatever you guys advocate. If you are going to go through with > >>> this, > >>> it'd be nice to see a release schedule so we know when it's best to > >>> commit code. I'd like to integrate Acegi this week or next, but if > >>> there's a release coming out soon, I should probably wait. > >>> > >>> Matt > > >
