On Sat, 23 Apr 2016, Jed Brown wrote: > Satish Balay <[email protected]> writes: > > > Ok - the master tests ran overnight > > > > I've switched the day builds to maint. [nightbuilds are reverted to next] > > > > Also created maint-3.6 branch off maint - and updated maint with master. > > Uh, then people that have been tracking 'maint' get something backward > incompatible before a release has been tagged or announced. I think > that's rude. How did this become the release process? I thought we > declared a merge deadline for 'master', feature freeze period, then > tagged the release on 'master'. That way people tracking 'maint' only > get the new release changes after the release has been made.
I'm sure you'll find faults with my answer - but here it goes.. Master currently doesn't work as you describe. To me - currently we are at RC [yeah - witout a change in petscversion.h or a tag] - and RC to RELEASE should be via maint workflow - hence this update to maint. I didn't intend to be rude to our 'maint' users. Ideally there should have been a tracking branch maint-3.6 always - so users who whish to time the switch from 3.6 to 3.7 do this on their terms [and not implicitly via maint]. I'll make an annoucement to maint users about switching to maint-3.6 branch. Satish
