Hi Craig,
On 19/05/16 08:32, Craig Barratt wrote:
> However, I'd prefer 4.x to be the master branch, since that will have
> the most development going forward.
I'll branch out 3.x, then, and merge in 4.x to master.
> Also, my github user name is craigbarratt.
I've added you to the organization
On 19.05.16 10:31, Lars Tobias Skjong-Børsting wrote:
>
> I'll branch out 3.x, then, and merge in 4.x to master.
>
Do you really think it was a good idea to merge in the `master` v3 CVS with v4
release tarball (which in not "real" source code)?
---
On 19/05/16 10:04, Alexander Moisseev wrote:
> On 19.05.16 10:31, Lars Tobias Skjong-Børsting wrote:
>>
>> I'll branch out 3.x, then, and merge in 4.x to master.
>>
> Do you really think it was a good idea to merge in the `master` v3 CVS with
> v4 release tarball (which in not "real" source code)?
On 19.05.16 11:30, Lars Tobias Skjong-Børsting wrote:
> On 19/05/16 10:04, Alexander Moisseev wrote:
>> On 19.05.16 10:31, Lars Tobias Skjong-Børsting wrote:
>>>
>>> I'll branch out 3.x, then, and merge in 4.x to master.
>>>
>> Do you really think it was a good idea to merge in the `master` v3 CVS
On 19/05/16 11:34, Alexander Moisseev wrote:
> IMHO yes, but I'd stop making any changes until we get feedback from Craig
> and interested contributors and come to some decision.
Do I understand you correctly if you think I shouln't force-push master
back to the 3.x.x right now, but wait for an
On 19.05.16 12:52, Lars Tobias Skjong-Børsting wrote:
> On 19/05/16 11:34, Alexander Moisseev wrote:
>
>> IMHO yes, but I'd stop making any changes until we get feedback from Craig
>> and interested contributors and come to some decision.
>
> Do I understand you correctly if you think I shouln't f
