On 04/05/2019 17:44, Jonathan Valliere wrote:
As per our Vote, 2.0 was renamed 2.0.X and 2.1 was renamed 2.1.X to prevent
confusion with tags having the same names.
You will have to update your local git for the remote tracking change by
switching to the local branch then issuing:
git push or
As per our Vote, 2.0 was renamed 2.0.X and 2.1 was renamed 2.1.X to prevent
confusion with tags having the same names.
You will have to update your local git for the remote tracking change by
switching to the local branch then issuing:
git push origin -u (2.1.X or 2.0.X)
Le 06/07/2018 à 23:15, Jonathan Valliere a écrit :
> There are no 2.1 releases are there?
No, there are none. There is a branch I created, but no release so far.
Maybe 3.0 should be reserved for some
> incompatible refactor.
3.0 does exist, and we have releases for it, but it's currently sle
There are no 2.1 releases are there? Maybe 3.0 should be reserved for some
incompatible refactor.
I know we had a discussion about this before; shouldn’t the major versions
numbers have a goal of maintaining compatibility with the entire major
number? So moving to 3 from 2 allows us to break bac
Le 06/07/2018 à 16:29, Jonathan Valliere a écrit :
> Any objections to setting up a 2.X branch which serves as the master then
> create the explicit numerical branches when releases are done? The 2.0
> used to be the master but now there is 2.1. Just looking to make it easier
> to understand.
Any objections to setting up a 2.X branch which serves as the master then
create the explicit numerical branches when releases are done? The 2.0
used to be the master but now there is 2.1. Just looking to make it easier
to understand.
