Andr Malo wrote:
Once forked off, 2.1.x would be *stabilizing* branch, that finally leads
to a 2.2.x branch, when we feel, it's stable (svn mv 2.1.x 2.2.x?). From the
2.1.x branch we tag alpha and beta releases; from *stable* 2.2.x rc and
stable release. I think that's exactly the point of the
--On Friday, May 13, 2005 9:07 PM +0200 André Malo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Instead of calling it branches/2.1.x, on IRC wrowe suggested going
straight to branches/2.2.x, and on further thought I agree.
I don't agree.
Votes on going straight to 2.2.0-alpha?
-0.5 on calling it 2.2.x.
I'm seeing it
Andr Malo wrote:
I'm seeing it like this:
Once forked off, 2.1.x would be *stabilizing* branch, that finally leads
to a 2.2.x branch, when we feel, it's stable (svn mv 2.1.x 2.2.x?). From the
2.1.x branch we tag alpha and beta releases; from *stable* 2.2.x rc and
stable release. I think that's
Sander Striker wrote:
Andr Malo wrote:
I'm seeing it like this:
Once forked off, 2.1.x would be *stabilizing* branch, that finally leads
to a 2.2.x branch, when we feel, it's stable (svn mv 2.1.x 2.2.x?).
From the 2.1.x branch we tag alpha and beta releases; from *stable*
2.2.x rc and
Based on the results from the '[PROPOSAL] Branch 2.1.x on May 13',
there are enough positive votes create the 2.1.x branch on this Friday:
+1: justin, Brad, Sander, (me)
-1: wrowe
+1, but latter discussed problems: Jim
Instead of calling it branches/2.1.x, on IRC wrowe suggested going
straight
