Yes, you are right, Jayush. Thanks for the correction. Yusaku
On 9/17/15, 2:56 PM, "Jayush Luniya" <[email protected]> wrote: >We don¹t have branch-2.1.maint but branch-2.1 (which is the cumulative >branch for 2.1). > >Thanks >Jayush > >On 9/17/15, 2:49 PM, "Alejandro Fernandez" <[email protected]> >wrote: > >>That's correct. >>Fixes for 2.1.2 need to go into trunk, branch-2.1.2, and branch-2.1.maint >>Fixes for 2.1.3 need to go into trunk, and branch-2.1.maint >> >>-Alejandro >> >>On 9/17/15, 2:32 PM, "Yusaku Sako" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>Sounds good. >>>Fixes for 2.1.2 should also be committed to branch-2.1.maint, right? >>>So it would be a commit to trunk, branch-2.1.maint, and branch-2.1.2? >>> >>>Yusaku >>> >>> >>> >>>On 9/17/15, 12:19 PM, "Richard Zang" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>Hi developers and PMCs, >>>> >>>>I am proposing cutting a new branch branch-2.1.2 for Ambari 2.1.2 on Sep >>>>17th 6pm PDT. >>>> >>>>After making the branch, we (i.e., development community) should only >>>>accept blocker or critical bug fixes into the branch and harden it until >>>>it meets a high enough quality bar. >>>>If you have a bug fix, it should first be committed to trunk, and after >>>>ensuring that it does not break any tests, then it should be integrated >>>>to the Ambari branch-2.1.2. >>>>If you have any doubts whether a fix should be committed into >>>>branch-2.1.2, please email me for input at [email protected] >>>>Stay tuned for updates on the release process. >>>> >>>> >>>>Thanks, >>>>Richard >> >> > >
