On Jan 12, 2011, at 11:07 PM, Arun C Murthy wrote: > > On Jan 12, 2011, at 2:56 PM, Nigel Daley wrote: > >> +1 for 0.20.x, where x >= 100. I agree that the 1.0 moniker would involve >> more discussion. > > Ok, seems like we are converging; we can continue talking. I've created the > branch to get the ball rolling. > >> Will this be a jumbo patch attached to a Jira and then committed to the >> branch? Just curious. > > I'm afraid that the svn log of the branch from github Y! branch is fairly > useless since a single JIRA might have multiple commits in the Y! branch > (bugfix on top of a bugfix). We have done that in several cases (but the > patches committed to trunk have a single patch which is the result of forward > porting a complete feature/bugfix). IAC the this branch and 0.22 have > diverged so much that almost no non-trivial patch would apply without a > significant amount of work. > > Thus, I think a jumbo patch should suffice. It will also ensure this can done > quickly so that the community can then concentrate on 0.22 and beyond. > > However, I will (manually) ensure all relevant jiras are referenced in the > CHANGES.txt and Release Notes for folks to see the contents of the release. > This is the hardest part of the exercise. Also, this ensures that we can > track these jiras for 0.22 as Eli suggested. > > Does that seem like a reasonable way forward? I'm happy to brainstorm.
+1. If it turns out to be insufficient to figure out how to apply similar changes to trunk/0.22 then we can address that as needed. Thanks Arun! Nige
