On Wed, Nov 6, 2019, at 10:56 AM, Bron Gondwana wrote: > 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.
Once we land mailboxes-by-id on master, I think there's gonna be a lot of big differences between 3.2 and master, which will make fixes-on-both a nuisance (no easy cherry-picks). So I think I've convinced myself we need to get 3.2 to a place we're happy with first, to avoid all the duplication. Though... I suppose the same duplication happens anyway, but in the form of rebases to the mailboxes-by-id branch instead...
