On 08/16/2017 04:07 PM, Kornel Benko wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 16. August 2017 um 15:35:34, schrieb Scott Kostyshak > <[email protected]> >> Please read the recent email I sent regarding branching 2.3.x [1]. I >> have branched and pushed the 2.3.x branch. >> >> 2.3.x will become 2.3.0, so if you are confident a commit belongs in >> 2.3.0, please go ahead and push to 2.3.x. master branch will eventually >> become 2.4.0, so you can commit to there as you would normally commit to >> master branch in the past when a release is not on-going (e.g. I think >> it is reasonable to think about it as the state of master right after >> 2.2.0 was released). >> >> I would imagine that most patches that go to the 2.3.x branch would also >> go into 2.4.0. An exception would be if we wanted a "safe fix" for 2.3.x >> and a more risky fix for master. >> >> I am not implementing a +1 policy yet for 2.3.x commits. I propose that >> we wait a couple of weeks and see how the testing of beta1 goes. >> Hopefully it goes smoothly and we can start thinking about rc1. Once we >> are at that point, I will ask that any non-documentation commit first >> receive an explicit +1 from another developer. >> >> Please let me know if I can clarify anything. > configure.ac in master branch should _now_ change the AC_INIT() signature, > otherwise it conflicts with 2.3.x branch
Yes, and I see you've done it. Richard
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
