Hey guys, Just a reminder that I'll be making this change tonight 2015-09-23 @ 19:00 MST. I'll send out an email pre and post changes.
Todd On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 at 16:21 Todd Nine <[email protected]> wrote: > 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? >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
