Okay, looks like we have 4 votes with Emmanuel Lecharny, Jean-François Maury, Jeff Genender, and Jonathan Valliere
Emmanuel, do you want to make these changes or should I? On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 11:29 AM Jonathan Valliere <[email protected]> wrote: > Will do next time. > > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 11:29 AM Jeff Genender <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Put a "[VOTE]" on the beginning of the subject line so it gets people’s >> attention better. This thread looks more like a discussion than a vote. >> But if it is a vote... >> >> +1 >> >> Jeff >> >> >> > On May 1, 2019, at 6:06 AM, Jonathan Valliere <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > Is that it? Just two votes? >> > >> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 2:13 PM Jonathan Valliere < >> [email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 2:10 PM Emmanuel Lecharny < >> [email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Le jeu. 25 avr. 2019 à 18:27, Jonathan Valliere <[email protected]> >> a >> >>> écrit : >> >>> >> >>>> I'd like to call a vote on the following proposal for branch changes >> for >> >>>> MINA. >> >>>> >> >>>> 1. Rename 2.1 to 2.1.X because 2.1 is our root branch from which >> >>> 2.1.1 >> >>>> and 2.1.2 spawn. The HEAD of 2.1.X should represent the current >> >>>> unreleased >> >>>> version in the 2.1 track. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> +1 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> 2. Rename 2.0 to 2.0.X because 2.0 is our root branch from which >> >>> 2.0.16+ >> >>>> spawn. The HEAD of 2.0.X should represent the current unreleased >> >>>> version >> >>>> in the 2.0 track. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> +1 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> 3. Remove 2.1.0 because it tracks 2.1.X and prefer to use tags for >> >>>> specific versions unless there is a specific reason why new >> >>> maintenance >> >>>> branches are >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Being far from my computer, I can’t check what this 2.1.0 is. From >> the top >> >>> of my head, it’s a tag, but if it’s a branch, then it’s bad. We need >> to >> >>> clarify that. >> >> >> >> >> >> 2.1.0 is a branch currently. Update proposal to remove the 2.1.0 >> branch >> >> after making sure 2.1 and 2.1.0 are at the same HEAD. >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> Thanks for the proposals, they make a lot if sense. >> >>> >> >>> We probably should also decide something related to 3.X: I don’t >> think it >> >>> will go any farther, and we may need this 3.X for the future >> evolutions. >> >>> -- >> >>> Regards, >> >>> Cordialement, >> >>> Emmanuel Lécharny >> >>> www.iktek.com >> >>> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this email message and any >> >> attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain >> >> confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected >> >> from disclosure. >> >> >> >> -- > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this email message and any > attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain > confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected > from disclosure. >
