2.1.0 and 2.1.1 can be done in a couple different ways. In the 2.0 branch, 2.0.0 was the first release and it was simply a tag on the branch (not a new branch). 2.0.1 was further down the line of the 2.0 branch, and a new tag was created for it. Ditto 2.0.2 and 2.0.3. All those were just snapshot points along the 2.0 line. In fact, RC1 and RC2 would be exactly the same - just snapshots.
I'd prefer to continue doing that same thing for 2.1. The other option is to make new branches for every point release, which I feel complicates the issue and doesn't get you a whole lot. I don't think it's good to have too many branches and our volunteer committers unsure of where their commits should go. However, with 2.0, we got into a lot of feature enhancements within that branch, and, IMO, that contributed to delaying the release of 2.1, because we were simply doing a lot of new stuff in 2.0, whereas, IMO, these branches should strictly be bug fixing, and new enhancements done in HEAD where they will be released in 2.2. The difference is, ideally, we push for 2.2 in 3-4 months, not 12. -Mike On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 18:06 +0100, sebb wrote: > OK, I see - I think. > > So when we want to produce 2.1.1 we create another branch (and tag)? > > BTW, should this one be called 2.1.0 ? > > S. > On 7/12/05, Michael Stover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The point of the branch is to assist with a feature freeze for the > > release, without interfering with anyone's desire to continue on with > > new work. Right now, if we are ready for a release candidate, we are > > ready for a feature freeze for 2.1, leaving HEAD free for new work. 2.1 > > would just be for bug fixes, essentially. > > > > I'm going to go ahead and make the branch unless I hear back not to. > > I'll wait though, give y'all time to respond to this. > > > > -Mike > > > > On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 17:21 +0100, sebb wrote: > > > There'll always be some more bits to tweak, but I think the codebase > > > is now OK for a release candidate. > > > > > > Just wondering if creating the branch should not wait until the RC has > > > been tested? > > > > > > I.e. create a 2.1RC1 tag, build and release RC1. > > > > > > If that's all OK, then create the 2.1 tag and branch. > > > > > > Or is that unnecessary? > > > > > > S. > > > On 7/12/05, Michael Stover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hey Sebb, > > > > Pete's ready for 2.1 to branch - are you? > > > > > > > > -Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
