On May 3, 2011, at 9:35 AM, Eli Collins wrote: > Do all changes for 0.20.2xx release go through branch-0.20-security, > then get merged to a particular -2xx branch?
I've discussed this before on the lists, but here goes: branch-0.20-security is the major branch and all changes need to be committed to it. The branches off of branch-0.20-security, namely branch-0.20-security-203 and branch-0.20-security-204 are the minor branches, which are branched off of branch-0.20-security every month or two. Within a minor branch there are only bug fixes. So this release, we are trying to get out the door is 0.20.203.0. A bug fix to it would go into 0.20.203.1. New features like disk fail in place go into 0.20.204.0. > Why is there a new 4th component to the version number? The problem is that we need minor versions and there isn't space in the current scheme. It would probably be clearer, if we called this release 1.0. Then this looks like: branch-1 branch-1.0 branch-1.1 with point releases off of it. When I floated the idea of using 1.0 last time, there was more consensus around using the 0.20.20X.Y naming. > I noticed a 0.20.205.0 fix version showed up recently. Where's the > branch for that? It hasn't branched yet, but it will come off of branch-0.20-security. -- Owen
