Makes sense. Thanks Vinod.
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli <vino...@hortonworks.com> wrote: > > 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/ >>>> >>>> >>> >
