It sounds like there isn't much blocking this, but does that mean the devs should go ahead with planning and making the branching changes?
Also I want to confirm: is the scope of this planned change only for pulp/pulp and pulp/devel repos for now? On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 10:56 AM, Patrick Creech <pcre...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2018-05-21 at 19:51 -0400, Dennis Kliban wrote: > > We need to start planning the creation of a "2.17-dev" branch from the > current master and merging "3.0-dev" into "master". We would then create > new "2.Y-dev" branch after each "2.Y.0" release. All > > 3.0 work would then land on master. > > Might I suggest a y-version agnostic 2-dev or 2-master or similar branch > instead? This would reflect better the state of the branch as "Pulp 2 > master" and will prevent us from having to rename a lot > of items each release. > +1 to this naming. > This would also help enforce our cherry-pick model of 'merge to master, > pick back to -release branches for releases' and will provide us a feature > branch to branch off our '2.y-release' branches > without adding in confusion each .y cycle. > > > > Do our release engineering tools support this change? If not, what would > it take to support it? > > Yes. There'd be some small changes required to use the new master branch > insted of 'master', but that's it. > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pulp-dev mailing list > > Pulp-dev@redhat.com > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > Pulp-dev@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
