So right now, if there was a bug in 0.13.0 that needed an important patch- why not just merge it into master and git branch "branch-0.13.0"
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <dlie...@gmail.com> wrote: > PS. but i see the rational. to have stable fixes to get into release. > perhaps named release branches is still a way to go if one cuts them early > enough. > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <dlie...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Pat Ferrel <p...@occamsmachete.com> > wrote: > > > > Since merges are done by committers, it’s easy to retarget a > contributor’s > >> PRs but committers would PR against develop, > > > > IMO it is anything but easy to resolve conflicts, let alone somebody > > else's. Spark just asks me to resolve them myself. But if you don't have > > proper target, you can't ask the contributor. > > > > and some projects like PredictionIO make develop the default branch on > >> github so it's the one contributors get by default. > >> > > That would fix it but i am not sure if we have access to HEAD on github > > mirror. Might involve INFRA to do it And in that case it would amount > > little more but renaming. It would seem it is much easier to create a > > branch, "stable master" or something, and consider master to be ongoing > PR > > base. > > > > -1 on former, -0 on the latter. Judging from the point of both > contributor > > and committer (of which I am both).it will not make my life easy on > either > > end. > > > > >
