I'm all for doing releases against 2.0. We're working out some of our last operational kinks at Apigee for 2.0. I think after we've proven this in production for a few weeks, we should probably cut a 2.0 release to the public. The major barrier is we don't have a migration path from 1.0 to 2.0, short of just using a client to read from 1.0 and dump the data into 2.0. I think we need a more elegant solution.
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 at 14:33 John D. Ament <[email protected]> wrote: > We seem to talk about this subject every couple of months. Yes, makes > sense to do the switch and 1.x is a fine name. > > What about doing releases against 2.0? > > John > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:54 PM Todd Nine <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Yeah, I agree it's more straightforward. Maybe "1.x"? We'll most > likely > > be maintaining that branch for a couple of more releases as we build > > migration tools to 2.x. > > > > On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 at 11:21 Dave <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Sounds good but why not call the branch "1.0" -- seems less confusing, > at > > > least to me. > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 1:19 PM Todd Nine <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hey all, > > > > Our 1.x development has slowed to patches only. Our 2.0 is under > > heavy > > > > development and deployment. Rather than continue to keep 1.x on > > master, > > > I > > > > propose we rename "master" to "one-dot-oh", and rename > "two-dot-o-dev" > > to > > > > "master", future 2.x releases will come from the master branch. > > > > > > > > I propose I make this change on 2015-09-23 @ 19:00 MST, and confirm > on > > > the > > > > dev list when complete. > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > >
