On 03/26/2014 11:56 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Again: This regression has zero connection to the existence of
2.1.1-staging.
No worries, I got it. My aversion against 2.1.1-staging predated this regression
and my points stand no matter whether I was wrong or right in this particular
case.
2.1.1-staging contains two dozen of commits already I don't see why they should
be considered stable branch business except that you become over frustrated by
long waiting for 2.1 release and try to make everything happen in two weeks now.
Let me try to explain this again: 2.1.1-staging is not any kind of
stable branch. As Jurgen has said, it's a bookkeeping device. It
contains commits that have been made to 2.2-staging that are *eligible*
for inclusion in 2.1.x, once that exists. I will go through them again,
and ask questions where necessary, once 2.1.x is open, and decide what
to include and when to include it. I might decide to wait on some of
those commits until they have been in master for a bit, which they will
be once 2.2-staging is merged. All that is the way things are normally
done. I'd have used trac to keep (uhhh) track of this, but I couldn't
figure out a way to do so without adding new keywords (fixedin...?) we'd
only need for a few weeks.
Richard
