On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Andrea Del Bene <an.delb...@gmail.com>wrote:
> +1 for B. IMHO it's more rational > > We now live in a semver world and we need to agree on some basics: how >> we are going to maintain and release our software. >> >> From what I have heard from several folks in jira, mail, IRC and >> direct communication is that we have basically 2 camps: >> >> A. develop and release bug fixes until we we start developing for >> minor/major releases 6.1 (and 7.0). >> >> versus >> >> B. develop and release minor releases, only backporting critical bugs >> and releasing bug fix releases in case of critical bugs >> >> As we are following semver, both are valid strategies. >> >> Option A would require separate branches for 6.0.z, and 6.y >> Option B would require only branches 6.y.z when critical bugs are >> found—which should be rare. >> >> Option A would probably result in some releases like: >> - 6.0.1, 6.0.2, 6.0.3, 6.1.0, 6.0.4, 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.1.3, 6.0.5, 6.2.0, >> 6.1.4 >> >> Whereas option B should result in releases like: >> - 6.1.0, 6.2.0, 6.3.0, 6.3.1, 6.4.0, 6.5.0, 6.4.1 >> >> What do you think? >> >> Martijn >> > > So, just to be clear - this means that when I fix a bug in master right now I put fix version of "6.1.0" in, right? -- Jeremy Thomerson http://wickettraining.com *Need a CMS for Wicket? Use Brix! http://brixcms.org*
