On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Ken Barber <[email protected]> wrote:
> > You do touch on something that I've been wondering about. We somehow > have ended > > up with a 3.x branch, which would mean that master is really the 4.x > > branch. I don't see > > any point on us trying to work on 4.x when there isn't even a 3.x > > release yet. Would anyone > > be opposed to us getting rid of the 3.x branch? I think the flow would > > then be that topics > > merge onto master. At a release point we would merge master onto a > > "3-stable" (or something, > > I'm not sure about the name, 2.7.x is essentially 2.7-stable). Points > > along "3-stable" would be > > tagged as 3.0.0rc1, 3.0.0, 3.0.1rc1, etc.This is essentially the > > stable/development strategy > > for branching that gets talked about, I believe. > > The extra 3.x branch is confusing and slightly superfluous agreed, at > least until you attempt to gain stability for a 3.0.0 release by > cutting the rc branch. So +1 for removing it. > There are not presently any commits in master that aren't also in 3.x. The thing to keep in mind is that as soon as we release 3.0.0 we'll establish both 3.x and 3.0.x. 3.0.x will merge up into 3.x and 3.0.x will be for bug fixes, 3.x will be for backwards compatible features. master will be for backwards incompatible changes. So, even if we remove it today it's just going to com back. With that said, I'll go ahead and get rid of 3.x this week. Look for another email to puppet-dev when I get around to it. It'll probably be Wednesday at this point. -Jeff -- 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.
