On 29 April 2015 at 11:16, Dominic Evans <dominic.ev...@uk.ibm.com> wrote:
> -----Robbie Gemmell <robbie.gemm...@gmail.com> wrote: -----
>> There were some changes on master and the branch yesterday, so I have
>> updated the commit lists again. The current categorised list of
>> commits is now at:
>> http://people.apache.org/~robbie/qpid/proton/0.9.1/git-cherry-pass3-c
>> ategorised.txt
>>
>> As before, only the commits at the very bottom have been picked from
>> master to the 0.9.x branch. All the previous commits mentioned in the
>> file have not. If you want anything else included you need to say so,
>> or do so.
>>
>> We are essentially waiting for PROTON-858 at this point, which there
>> still seems to be a lot of discussion going on about. If we cant land
>> it quickly with confidence I'd like to suggest possibly deferring it,
>> as we can always do more releases.
>
> Thanks Robbie.
>
> Ongoing, is the plan that we should continue to backport cherry-picked bugfix
> commits from master and keep the 0.9.x series going for possible future point
> releases?
>
> --
> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
> 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
>

I dont think there is currently an ongoing plan to keep using the
branch that way, however I certainly wouldnt have a problem with doing
so as I think we should do more releases in general, and more
traditional point releases than we have (this will be the first). I
named the branch something other than 0.9.1 mainly to avoid a name
clash between branch and subsequent tag, but I chose 0.9.x because it
was obvious and meant the branch would be usable for future point
releases if ever needed.

Ultimately all it takes to get a [point] release out is general
agreement it should happen, one or more folks willing to do the work
preparing it, and then enough people to actually vote for it. Timing
has made that happen here due to the issues in 0.9 and master not
being ready for 0.10 yet. In terms of future point releases, I'd say
the approaches would be either wait and backport things only once it
becomes clear we want to do a point release, or agree upfront that
people maintain such a branch that can be released whenever deemed
appropriate due to the things on it. In the end it might end up having
a bit of both.

Robbie

Reply via email to