There is active discussion about a convention to allow some threads of development. That is the good news. The bad news is that the convention is likely to be feature-* rather than anything that looks like a failed release.
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Julian Hyde <[email protected]> wrote: > There’s no other thread, since David Nalley’s email was sent to a Bcc: > list, but I’ve sent him an email and copied you (Jacques) on it. > > > On Nov 5, 2015, at 1:50 PM, Jacques Nadeau <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I think the temporary- concept seems like a simple solution. You want to > > propose on that other thread so I can +1? > > > > -- > > Jacques Nadeau > > CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio > > > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Julian Hyde <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > >>> On Nov 5, 2015, at 1:12 PM, Jacques Nadeau <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> I'm not sure what to do here. INFRA just changed the Git behavior so it > >> is > >>> no longer possible to delete branches. I generally don't like to have > >>> failed branches in a release history (otherwise you get a release > branch > >>> with all these maven forward/backwards commits). As such, I would > >> overwrite > >>> candidate branches historically (dropping the failed release commits). > >> > >> (Moving to a new thread to as not to hijack the VOTE thread.) > >> > >> I am wresting with the same problem with Calcite. I wonder whether we > >> should ask INFRA to treat branches called ‘temporary-…’ differently. > >> > >> Julian > >> > >> > >
