On Wed, Nov 6, 2019, at 09:24, ellie timoney wrote: > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019, at 4:44 PM, Bron Gondwana wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019, at 12:04, Ricardo Signes wrote: >>> So, I think the plan was to cut a stable Cyrus 3.2 after we had stable >>> JMAP. Is that time now? We talked about this on the Zoom call today. >> >> I think we're pretty close to it. The big question is: do we fork what will >> eventually become 3.2 and keep stabilising on it while we ship UUID >> mailboxes on master, or do we finish 3.2 before we merge uuid mailboxes. > > I don't think we can include uuid mailboxes in 3.2 -- it's too new/untested, > whereas this is a "stable release". (But I don't think you were proposing > this.)
No - the idea is to fork 3.2 just before uuid mailboxes lands. The question is: 1) fork now, put all other fixes on both branches. 2) do the 3.2 prep work first on master, then fork that before merging uuidmailboxes. > Whether we fork the 3.2 branch now, or wait until we're closer to releasing > it, doesn't really matter to me. Though if we have a bunch of stuff we're > still stabilising, it's always easier to do that work on master only rather > than juggling it on two branches. But either way, it does mean the > mailboxes-by-id branch needs to keep sitting on the side and being rebased > until after 3.2 becomes its own branch. Yeah, that's the challenge isn't it :) Which is less work / safer / more understandable. Bron. -- Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd br...@fastmailteam.com
