On 04/18/2016 05:07 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > > > > > > We should already be on 2.2 and not on master, which is the future: 2.3 > > > > Yes, that was also my proposal. > > However, people appear to be afraid to not have the 2.2.0 tag in master. > > But note that if the 2.2-branch in this scenario is merged back into > master after the release, it is equivalent to merging 2.3-staging to > master in the current proposal. In both ways the tag ends up in > master, and there is not a real difference between merging A into B > anhd merging B into A. >
2.2.x-staging won't get merged into master, only into 2.2.x. > 2.2.1-staging is not necessary as all changes are so important that > they can probably go to 2.2.0 as well. > There are already commits to 2.2.1-staging. Nothing goes to master (=2.2.0) now except what is absolutely critical. > Changes for 2.2.2 can be cherry-picked from 2.3-staging (or master) > when 2.1.1 is released. > Yes, it would be possible to do it this way. It is more confusing for me, though, and I worry that some important commit would be missed. rh
