I read this when you linked to it yesterday. I think it's a fine idea.
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Chapuis Bertil <bchap...@agimem.com> wrote: > Good point. Personally I think that the release should not block the > development of 0.0.2. It seems that the solution proposed in [1] could make > sense in our case. if there is no objection I propose to create a stable > branch with the current state of the trunk and to start applying the patches > for 0.0.2 on the trunk. The 0.0.1 release will be made from the stable > branch. > > [1] - > http://lsimons.wordpress.com/2010/02/19/using-long-lived-stable-branches/ > > > > On 2 March 2011 22:45, Eugen Paraschiv <hanrisel...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> I have a few patches on 0.0.2 issues that are probably ready to commit (or >> at least review). I had previously moved them to 0.0.2 in order to clear up >> 0.0.1 and move the release forward (which it is). But seeing how this is >> our >> first release and it will probably take a few more days to finish (my own >> guess), I wanted to ask about the timeframe of the release process, and if >> it makes sense to move back and quickly get committed some minor 0.0.2 >> issues. >> Thanks for any feedback. >> Eugen. >> > > > > -- > Bertil Chapuis > Agimem Sàrl > http://www.agimem.com >
