Sounds good to me. For a project of this nature keeping everything off of master seems like a good plan.
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok. Lets see how it goes. > St.Ack > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Colin P. McCabe <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > That's a good question. I think when the time comes for 4.1, we > > should just create a new 4.1 branch from master, like we did with 4.0 > > and the earlier release branches. > > > > The 4.0 branch was never really meant to be long-lived.... having to > > do lots of backports all the time is annoying. Also there is that "0" > > in there :) > > > > I like the idea of always keeping master in a releaseable state, which > > making release branches off of master tends to encourage. > > > > cheers, > > Colin > > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Stack <[email protected]> wrote: > > > From master branch or from the 4.0 branch? (The latter I'd think). > > > > > > Master should be 5.0.0? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > St.Ack > > >
