I'm good with a 3.1 (derived from 3.0.x) with Derek still the RM and then 4.0 (derived from master) with Rawlin? as the RM.
And everything rawlin said makes perfect sense to me. Jeremy On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 12:46 PM Rawlin Peters <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 on doing a 3.1 before a 4.0. > > It sounds like the plan for a 3.1 release would be the following -- > just to be clear it wouldn't be cut from the head of master? > 1. create a new 3.1.x branch off the current head of 3.0.x > 2. open PRs to backport pertinent features/bugfixes from master to the > 3.1.x branch, tagged with a 3.1 milestone > 3. create a 3.1 release from the head of the 3.1.x branch once all 3.1 > milestone PRs have been merged > > If so, we should create a 3.1 milestone and start opening backport PRs > with it (probably run the bugfix/feature by the list before doing the > cherry-pick). In fact, there is already a 3.0.2 milestone (which a > couple PRs have been backported to 3.0.x under); we should just change > that milestone from 3.0.2 to 3.1 since we're going to do a 3.1 > instead. > > - Rawlin > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 11:47 AM Dave Neuman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Here Derek, > > I think we should do a 3.1 release before 4.0. Let's work to define the > > scope and keep it as small as possible. I think Steve had a few things > he > > wanted to get in, does anyone else? > > > > Thanks, > > Dave > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 11:42 AM Gelinas, Derek < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi all, I’m curious if anyone has any strong feelings on releasing a > final > > > 3.1 build with bug fixes and maybe a feature or two before we start > working > > > on the 4.0 release. Otherwise, the plan will likely be to go straight > to > > > 4.0. > > > > > > Derek > > > >
