+1. 4.0 named as 4.x or 4, 3.0 named as 3.x or 3
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:34 AM, James Taylor <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > The original intent of the 4.0 branch was meant to host all 4.x > > releases. In general releases are compatible in the following manner: > > - a minor release must be deployed first on the server and then at any > > point later on the client. It will require a rolling restart, but no > > downtime. > > - a patch release may be deployed on the client and server in either > > order. If the patch requires the server jar to be deployed (which > > would likely be most of the time), it will require a rolling restart > > and no downtime will be required. > > - a major release may require downtime, as it may require the client > > and server side to both be deployed together. > > > > If you like I could make an alternate proposal to rename the branches to > branch-4 (and branch-3), then. > > Having a branch named '4.0' that builds releases 4.1.x is bound to confuse, > IMHO. > > > > -- > Best regards, > > - Andy > > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein > (via Tom White) >
