Thank you. I think these are good questions. > What would happen if we discover that a tagged release has a critical bug > that was missed by the test cases? Would we have a release branch to > stabilise the release with any critical fixes?
I think that is the right choice. What do you think? > Were you thinking of the scenario where we're trying to stabilise a release > on trunk at the same time as a major feature is in development? I'm not a > big fan of long-lived feature branches: I think it's a last resort if > changes can't be staged in trunk in a sensible non-breaking way. For "big breaking changes", you mean? I was thinking of the things that would cause us to move to Impala 3.0, rather than a long-lived feature branch. Do you think Impala 3.0 development should happen on "master"?
