On Thu, 8 Jan 2015 10:24:49 -0500, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Luc Maisonobe <l...@spaceroots.org>
wrote:
Le 08/01/2015 07:59, Thomas Neidhart a écrit :
> On 01/08/2015 02:40 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 6, 2015, at 3:10 PM, Gilles
<gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>
wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> Do we head towards 4.0, starting to implement the dreaded
>>> breakings? ;-)
>>
>> How about starting a new 4.0 branch and keeping head set up for
3.x so
we can cut 3.4.1 when the bugs start coming in against 3.4.
>
> +1
Of course a branch is needed, but why consider master should be 3.x
and
4.0 should be a side branch.
If we consider 4.0 is the future and 3.x is only for bug fixes, then
4.0
should be master and 3.x a side branch. This side branch could be
created later on, if needed. It is straightforward to create new
branches in git even from very old commits, so the branch creation
can
be delayed until needed (and only if needed).
What would happen if we then need to merge (backport) a modification
performed under the "o.a.c.math4" hierarchy into the "o.a.c.math3"
hierarchy of that branch?
Would two files "o/a/c/math4/SomeAlgo.java" and
"o/a/c/math3/SomeAlgo.java"
be considered the same w.r.t. to "diff"? Or would we need to manually
copy
from "math4"?
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
