As there has been no strong objection, I'm going to proceed and create the branch.
Note that I'm discarding Michael remark as a joke due to the use of a smiley, but just in case that was a genuine concern, I'll argue that 1) 'trunk' isn't really more arithmetic friendly so I don't think there is too much reliance on this for branch names out there and 2) I really don't care about the branch name, 3.X just feels the more natural, but if something thing just calling it '3' or something else would be better, be my guest and rename it. On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Michael Shuler <mich...@pbandjelly.org> wrote: > I foresee many arithmetic errors with 3.X.. :) > > -- > Michael > > On 09/27/2016 05:18 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote: > > We have a number of tickets that we now have to wait on 4.0 due to > needing a > > messaging protocol change or major sstable format (https://goo.gl/OvqNQp > ), > > and > > we currently have no branch for those. And as 4.0 was initially supposed > to > > come > > after 3.11, which is coming, it's probably time to have a home for those > > tickets. > > > > And as 4.0 should probably be the 'trunk' (at least it's how we've always > > done), > > I'm proposing to create a new '3.X' branch from trunk as home for the > > remaining > > 3.x tick-tock release. In that configuration, the merge path will become: > > > > 2.1 -> 2.2 -> 3.0 -> 3.X -> trunk (future 4.0) > > > > Any strong objection to me creating that branch? > > > > Sylvain Lebresne > > > >
