Please proceed! Le sam. 4 mai 2019 à 02:28, Jonathan Valliere <[email protected]> a écrit :
> 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. > > > -- Regards, Cordialement, Emmanuel Lécharny www.iktek.com
