On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Ted Yu wrote:
> I think there seem to be two concepts here (as J-D said in his first
> email): stable release vs. stable branch.
>
Yeah. You are conflating two applications of 'stable'; the 'stable'
symlink upper under downloads and releases that are from an old
I think there seem to be two concepts here (as J-D said in his first
email): stable release vs. stable branch.
So how should we interpret this single stable symlink ?
Thanks
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Jean-Daniel Cryans wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Ted Yu wrote:
> > Let's co
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Ted Yu wrote:
> Let's consider the following scenario in chronological order:
> 0.92.x is released
> 0.94.y is released
> 0.92.x+1 is released
>
> Would the stable symlink point alternately to each of the releases as
> they're available ?
That would really not wor
Let's consider the following scenario in chronological order:
0.92.x is released
0.94.y is released
0.92.x+1 is released
Would the stable symlink point alternately to each of the releases as
they're available ?
Or should we have two symlinks, one for 0.92 branch, one for 0.94 branch ?
Thanks
On
Considering that we tag a "release" as stable, and only one at a time,
how does that quote even relate? To me it's completely orthogonal.
J-D
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Ted Yu wrote:
> Renaming subject since the discussion may be long.
>
> Allow me to quote Todd from another email thread:
Renaming subject since the discussion may be long.
Allow me to quote Todd from another email thread:
bq. I think we should be especially conservative about adding even
non-invasive features to "stable" branches.
Since 0.94 is considered stable, should the above be applicable ?
Thanks
On Wed, S
