Not sure when it stopped being so, but we always created release tags for the releases and do away with the staging branches. I find it confusing as to which branches to commit to when we have dead branches lying around.
Regarding 0.23.*, you are right, I was about to send a separate email regarding those too. Thanks, +Vinod On Jun 6, 2012, at 2:10 PM, Eli Collins wrote: > Hey Vinod, > > Out of curiosity, why delete the branch? Might make spelunking for > svn revs that correspond to a release hard. If we're deleting old > release branches might as well delete the others (branch-0.23.0, > branch-0.23.0-rc0, branch-0.23.1, branch-0.23.2, etc) as well? > > Thanks, > Eli > > On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli > <vino...@hortonworks.com> wrote: >> >> >> I checked with Nicholas also who did the only merge into branch-2.0.0-alpha >> after the release and got a confirmation that I can delete the branch. >> >> Removing the branch now. >> >> Thanks, >> +Vinod >> >> >> On Jun 5, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: >> >>> +1 for blowing away branch-2.0.0-alpha now, we have the release tag if >>> necessary. >>> >>> thanks, >>> Arun >>> >>> On Jun 5, 2012, at 4:40 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I see two branches for 2.* now: branch-2 and branch-2.0.0-alpha and two >>>> sections in CHANGES.txt: 2.0.1-alpha unreleased and 2.0.0-alpha released. >>>> It is a little confusing, seems like branch-2.0.0-alpha was a staging >>>> branch for the release and can be thrown away. >>>> >>>> Anyone committing patches to both branch-2 and branch-2.0.0-alpha? If not, >>>> I'll blow away the later and rename the section in CHANGES.txt to branch-2. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> +Vinod >>> >>> -- >>> Arun C. Murthy >>> Hortonworks Inc. >>> http://hortonworks.com/ >>> >>> >>
