I think we can easily do bug fixes from the tag.
On 4 August 2014 21:15, Remko Popma <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, the thing is, I've been holding back on this and prioritized > bugfixes for over a year now in order to get 2.0 out the door. I've really > been looking forward to working on these new things. > > So what am I supposed to do? There will never be an end to new bugs being > reported. > > Not happy, > Remko... > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 2014/08/05, at 10:24, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > > It seems that there are some fixes and pending bugs since we started the > 2.0.1 vote that would justify a 2.0.2. Then we could do 2.1. My feeling is > that our priority should be to fix 2.0.x as much as possible before adding > more features for a 2.1. IOW, let's stabilize the current features in > 2.0.x, then add complexity and possible bugs with new features. > > Gary > > > On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Matt Sicker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Are there any outstanding issues we'd like to address in a 2.0.2 release, >> or should we just start working toward 2.1 now instead? Because if we go >> the 2.1 route of focus, I've got a few branches to merge back together >> (thankfully, git-svn will help a lot in that regard) into trunk. >> >> As Ralph (IIRC) pointed out, we don't need to make an explicit 2.0 branch >> since we can just branch from the 2.0.1 tag itself if necessary. >> >> -- >> Matt Sicker <[email protected]> >> > > > > -- > E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] > Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition > <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> > JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> > Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> > Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com > Home: http://garygregory.com/ > Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory > > -- Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
