Op donderdag 19 april 2018 17:15:50 CEST schreef Eric Siegerman: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 10:29:23AM +0200, Geert Janssens wrote: > > In the 2.7 > > development cycle we experimented with an extra "unstable" *branch* to do > > the unstable releases from. > > Which is pretty standard practice -- except for the name. > Intuitively, I'd expect a branch called "unstable" to be *less* > stable than master, not more so. Perhaps this caused some of the > confusion that has been expressed both here and in the similar > thread over in -user. > > I imagine the branch got its name as the source of the "unstable" > release series, but still... > Indeed.
> > For future unstable releases we will probably just do > > them from the master branch instead and forget an unstable branch ever > > existed. > > Makes sense. Since (as it appeared to me as a lurker) the whole > team switched over to stabilization mode, with dev work toward > 4.x on hold for the duration, the additional branch likely didn't > add much value. But should you ever change your minds, may I > suggest calling the third branch "stabilization" -- or a shorter > quasi-synonym, e.g. "beta". > Good idea. Geert _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
