Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

Am Dienstag, 19. April 2016 um 21:05:57, schrieb Georg Baum > Richard Heck wrote: > > > The other two 2.2.x-staging branches are entirely for book-keeping > > purposes. It is just easier for me to have the various fixes that are > > intended for 2.2.1 and 2.2.2

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

On 04/19/2016 03:05 PM, Georg Baum wrote: > Richard Heck wrote: > >> The other two 2.2.x-staging branches are entirely for book-keeping >> purposes. It is just easier for me to have the various fixes that are >> intended for 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 in git branches rather than to try to keep >> track of

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

Richard Heck wrote: > The other two 2.2.x-staging branches are entirely for book-keeping > purposes. It is just easier for me to have the various fixes that are > intended for 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 in git branches rather than to try to keep > track of them via milestones or keywords or whatever in

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

On 04/19/2016 04:49 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:07:01PM +0200, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: >>> We should already be on 2.2 and not on master, which is the future: 2.3 >>> >> Yes, that was also my proposal. >> >> However, people appear to be afraid to not have the

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:07:01PM +0200, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > > > > We should already be on 2.2 and not on master, which is the future: 2.3 > > > > Yes, that was also my proposal. > > However, people appear to be afraid to not have the 2.2.0 tag in master. Yes, I was the scared one.

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

Peter Kümmel wrote: > I also think these branches are overkill. +1 Pavel

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

On 04/18/2016 05:07 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > > > > > > We should already be on 2.2 and not on master, which is the future: 2.3 > > > > Yes, that was also my proposal. > > However, people appear to be afraid to not have the 2.2.0 tag in master. > > But note that if the 2.2-branch in this

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

On 04/18/2016 05:02 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote: > Am 18. April 2016 22:56:06 MESZ, schrieb Richard Heck : >> On 04/18/2016 04:32 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote: >>> Am 18. April 2016 22:29:51 MESZ, schrieb "Peter Kümmel" >> : I also think these branches are overkill.

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

> > We should already be on 2.2 and not on master, which is the future: 2.3 > Yes, that was also my proposal. However, people appear to be afraid to not have the 2.2.0 tag in master. But note that if the 2.2-branch in this scenario is merged back into master after the release, it is equivalent

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

Am 18. April 2016 22:56:06 MESZ, schrieb Richard Heck : >On 04/18/2016 04:32 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote: >> Am 18. April 2016 22:29:51 MESZ, schrieb "Peter Kümmel" >: >>> I also think these branches are overkill. >>> >>> I would only use master and 2.2. No 2.3, it

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

On 04/18/2016 04:32 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote: > Am 18. April 2016 22:29:51 MESZ, schrieb "Peter Kümmel" : >> I also think these branches are overkill. >> >> I would only use master and 2.2. No 2.3, it is so far away that it could be >> in master. >> >> 2.2 should be always

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

Am 18. April 2016 22:29:51 MESZ, schrieb "Peter Kümmel" : >Am 18. April 2016 21:28:04 MESZ, schrieb Georg Baum >: >>Richard Heck wrote: >> >>> We now have three staging branches. These are: >>> >>> 2.3-staging >>> 2.2.1-staging >>>

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

Am 18. April 2016 22:29:51 MESZ, schrieb "Peter Kümmel" : >Am 18. April 2016 21:28:04 MESZ, schrieb Georg Baum >: >>Richard Heck wrote: >> >>> We now have three staging branches. These are: >>> >>> 2.3-staging >>> 2.2.1-staging >>>

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

Am 18. April 2016 21:28:04 MESZ, schrieb Georg Baum : >Richard Heck wrote: > >> We now have three staging branches. These are: >> >> 2.3-staging >> 2.2.1-staging >> 2.2.2-staging > >That makes 5 active branches in total (please correct me if I

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

Richard Heck wrote: > We now have three staging branches. These are: > > 2.3-staging > 2.2.1-staging > 2.2.2-staging That makes 5 active branches in total (please correct me if I misunderstood something): 2.1.x => will become 2.1.5 master => will become 2.2.0

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

On 04/16/2016 04:25 PM, Guillaume Munch wrote: > Le 16/04/2016 20:44, Richard Heck a écrit : >> >> We now have three staging branches. These are: >> >> 2.3-staging >> 2.2.1-staging >> 2.2.2-staging >> >> >> 2.3-staging can be treated as master usually is: It is for development >> on

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

Le 16/04/2016 20:44, Richard Heck a écrit : We now have three staging branches. These are: 2.3-staging 2.2.1-staging 2.2.2-staging 2.3-staging can be treated as master usually is: It is for development on what will become 2.3 and is now open for commits. This branch will be

Staging Branches [REVISED]

We now have three staging branches. These are: 2.3-staging 2.2.1-staging 2.2.2-staging 2.3-staging can be treated as master usually is: It is for development on what will become 2.3 and is now open for commits. This branch will be merged into master after the release of 2.2.0.