That seems very reasonable.

On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 9:19 AM, James Taylor <[email protected]>wrote:

> Good points, Andrew. The 4.0 branch should become master. I'm just
> finishing up a feature for 3.0. I'll cut a branch next week for 3.0, and
> then when Jeffrey does his re-base, he can move it to master.
>
> We should have three branches:
> 3.0 - this will be the branch compatible with 0.94
> 2.0 - this is the current stable release that will get sub-planted by 3.0.
> I'd like to keep it in case we need to do patch releases.
> master - this will be the branch for 0.96 and 0.98. Once we release 4.0, we
> can create a 4.0 branch.
>
> Does that seem reasonable?
>
> Thanks,
> James
>
> On Saturday, February 15, 2014, Andrew Purtell <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > There are several branches in the Phoenix repository:
> >
> >    remotes/asf/2.2.3
> >    remotes/asf/4.0
> >    remotes/asf/4.0.0
> >    remotes/asf/HEAD -> asf/master
> >    remotes/asf/master
> >
> > Is there a wiki page that describes them?
> >
> > In lieu of that, "2.2.3" and "4.0.0" look like release branches. "4.0"
> > looks like a feature/future dev branch, though it is a bit odd that
> > "master" seems to correspond with a "3.0" release line, when the usual
> > convention is "master" is the leading edge of commit history. Also, is a
> > "4.0.0" branch premature, or is there a 4.0.0 release actually being
> > staged? Thanks in advance for the clarifications.
> >
> > If we have a fix applicable to all branches, like PHOENIX-46, what should
> > we do as committers? I think typical practice would be to skip what look
> > like release branches, since they correspond to artifacts already
> produced,
> > and commit everywhere else. It would be a bit more comfortable and
> expected
> > in my view if "master" was 4.x, there was a branch for 3.x, and commits
> > would go to master, then be back ported to other active major version
> > branches as needed. For your consideration.
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> >
> >    - Andy
> >
> > Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
> > (via Tom White)
> >
>



-- 
Best regards,

   - Andy

Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein
(via Tom White)

Reply via email to