On Aug 10, 2009, at 3:16 PM, James Turnbull wrote: > Hi all > > I just wanted to query consider its getting close how we planned to > manage Git after 0.25.0. My plan (and obviously open to input and > Luke > has a different view, etc, etc, :)) was: > > Branch master to 0.25.x. The 0.25.x branch continue on as the home > for > fixes for the 0.25.x releases - .1, .2, etc. The master branch would > remain "development" as such and would be targeted at 0.26.0. > > We would merge in fixes back and forth when required from master and > 0.25.x. > > Thoughts? Doctrinal arguments?
IMO, 'master' should always be the branch we expect people to submit code against, which to me means stable. I think we should move to the often-recreated 'next' branch as we discussed, probably with an additional 'dev' branch, so we can try code out in one of these branches for a while and remove it if it doesn't work (without having to revoke code). -- The intelligent man finds almost everything ridiculous, the sensible man hardly anything. -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe --------------------------------------------------------------------- Luke Kanies | http://reductivelabs.com | http://madstop.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
