Re: master is locked for 2.2.0rc1 preparation

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 09:37:23PM +0200, Georg Baum wrote: > Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 09:08:50PM +0200, Georg Baum wrote: > > > >> PS: Since RC is "Release candidate" we should IMHO only allow really > >> critical bug fixes between RC1 and 2.2.0 final. In particular

Re: master is locked for 2.2.0rc1 preparation

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Scott Kostyshak wrote: >> B) Branch 2.2.x from master and continue "unstable" development on >> master. >> >> To me it does not feel right that the commits in-between 2.2.0rc1 and >> 2.2.0 final would not *necessarily* be in

Re: master is locked for 2.2.0rc1 preparation

Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 09:08:50PM +0200, Georg Baum wrote: > >> PS: Since RC is "Release candidate" we should IMHO only allow really >> critical bug fixes between RC1 and 2.2.0 final. In particular I think we >> should not do a RC2. > > I think I mostly agree, although

Re: master is locked for 2.2.0rc1 preparation

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 09:08:50PM +0200, Georg Baum wrote: > PS: Since RC is "Release candidate" we should IMHO only allow really > critical bug fixes between RC1 and 2.2.0 final. In particular I think we > should not do a RC2. I think I mostly agree, although I would take off the qualifier

Re: master is locked for 2.2.0rc1 preparation

Le 14/04/16 21:01, Georg Baum a écrit : Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: I would like also to see a strategy for 2.2.1. Do we reserve this milestone for urgent fixes and keep 2.2.2 for more mundane backports? Or do we treat it just like any other stable release. I would recommend to reserve it

Re: master is locked for 2.2.0rc1 preparation

Richard Heck wrote: > Then I propose to go ahead and create 2.3-staging and 2.2.1-staging now. > The former will be open for all commits, as if it were master, and will > eventually be merged to master; the latter will be treated as stable and > will be managed by me alongside 2.1.x. Why so many

Re: master is locked for 2.2.0rc1 preparation

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > I would like also to see a strategy for 2.2.1. Do we reserve this > milestone for urgent fixes and keep 2.2.2 for more mundane backports? Or > do we treat it just like any other stable release. I would recommend to reserve it for urgent fixes. I have made very good

Re: master is locked for 2.2.0rc1 preparation

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 02:02:23PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote: > On 04/13/2016 05:20 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote: > > Scott Kostyshak wrote: > >> B) Branch 2.2.x from master and continue "unstable" development on master. > >> > >> To me it does not feel right that the commits in-between 2.2.0rc1 and >

Re: master is locked for 2.2.0rc1 preparation

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:38:02PM +0200, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > Op 12 apr. 2016 22:07 schreef "Vincent van Ravesteijn" : > > > > > > Op 12 apr. 2016 21:29 schreef "Jean-Marc Lasgouttes" : > > > > > > > > Le 12/04/16 18:45, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : > > >

Re: master is locked for 2.2.0rc1 preparation

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 09:52:47PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 12/04/16 21:33, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : > >Let's focus on the following options: > > > >A) Branch 2.3.staging from master and continue "unstable" development on > >2.3.staging. After 2.2.0 is released we merge 2.3.staging

Re: master is locked for 2.2.0rc1 preparation

Richard Heck wrote: > Then I propose to go ahead and create 2.3-staging and 2.2.1-staging now. > The former will be open for all commits, as if it were master, and will > eventually be merged to master; the latter will be treated as stable and > will be managed by me alongside 2.1.x. > > OK?

Re: master is locked for 2.2.0rc1 preparation

On 04/13/2016 05:20 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Scott Kostyshak wrote: >> B) Branch 2.2.x from master and continue "unstable" development on master. >> >> To me it does not feel right that the commits in-between 2.2.0rc1 and 2.2.0 >> final would not *necessarily* be in master's commit history. > I

Re: master is locked for 2.2.0rc1 preparation

Scott Kostyshak wrote: > B) Branch 2.2.x from master and continue "unstable" development on > master. > > To me it does not feel right that the commits in-between 2.2.0rc1 and > 2.2.0 final would not *necessarily* be in master's commit history. I I would prefer to see 2.2.0 final commit in

Re: master is locked for 2.2.0rc1 preparation

Op 12 apr. 2016 22:07 schreef "Vincent van Ravesteijn" : > > > Op 12 apr. 2016 21:29 schreef "Jean-Marc Lasgouttes" : > > > > > Le 12/04/16 18:45, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : > > > >> So in the commit history of master we will not see the final 2.2.0 > >> release

Re: master is locked for 2.2.0rc1 preparation

Le 12/04/16 22:07, Vincent van Ravesteijn a écrit : > No Vincent did not want that. But since he is away, we can be naughty. Huh, what? So you are here lurking, I knew it. Hello Vincent, I'm glad to read you! JMarc

Re: master is locked for 2.2.0rc1 preparation

Op 12 apr. 2016 21:29 schreef "Jean-Marc Lasgouttes" : > > Le 12/04/16 18:45, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : > >> So in the commit history of master we will not see the final 2.2.0 >> release (e.g. fde16219 for 2.1.0)? >> >> Have we done this before in this way? > > > No Vincent did

Re: master is locked for 2.2.0rc1 preparation

Le 12/04/16 21:33, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : Let's focus on the following options: A) Branch 2.3.staging from master and continue "unstable" development on 2.3.staging. After 2.2.0 is released we merge 2.3.staging into master. B) Branch 2.2.x from master and continue "unstable" development on

Re: master is locked for 2.2.0rc1 preparation

On 04/12/2016 03:33 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 03:23:07PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote: On 04/12/2016 03:09 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 12/04/16 20:19, Pavel Sanda a �crit : Scott Kostyshak wrote: It is your call, anyway. It or something similar seems like a good

Re: master is locked for 2.2.0rc1 preparation

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 03:23:07PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote: > On 04/12/2016 03:09 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > >Le 12/04/16 20:19, Pavel Sanda a �crit : > >>Scott Kostyshak wrote: > It is your call, anyway. > >>> > >>>It or something similar seems like a good idea to me. I just want to

Re: master is locked for 2.2.0rc1 preparation

Le 12/04/16 18:45, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : So in the commit history of master we will not see the final 2.2.0 release (e.g. fde16219 for 2.1.0)? Have we done this before in this way? No Vincent did not want that. But since he is away, we can be naughty. It or something similar seems like

Re: master is locked for 2.2.0rc1 preparation

On 04/12/2016 03:09 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 12/04/16 20:19, Pavel Sanda a �crit : Scott Kostyshak wrote: It is your call, anyway. It or something similar seems like a good idea to me. I just want to make sure I understand the details. One detail you should also understand is

Re: master is locked for 2.2.0rc1 preparation

Le 12/04/16 20:19, Pavel Sanda a écrit : Scott Kostyshak wrote: It is your call, anyway. It or something similar seems like a good idea to me. I just want to make sure I understand the details. One detail you should also understand is that people will pay less attention to you once master

Re: master is locked for 2.2.0rc1 preparation

Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > It is your call, anyway. > > It or something similar seems like a good idea to me. I just want to > make sure I understand the details. One detail you should also understand is that people will pay less attention to you once master is free :) Pavel

Re: master is locked for 2.2.0rc1 preparation

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 06:29:14PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 12/04/16 18:20, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : > >On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:57:40AM -0400, Richard Heck wrote: > >>On 04/12/2016 04:42 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > >>>Le 12/04/2016 04:09, Richard Heck a écrit : > I

Re: master is locked for 2.2.0rc1 preparation

Le 12/04/16 18:20, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:57:40AM -0400, Richard Heck wrote: On 04/12/2016 04:42 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 12/04/2016 04:09, Richard Heck a écrit : I propose to create a 2.3.staging branch so development can proceed. We did this with this

Re: master is locked for 2.2.0rc1 preparation

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:57:40AM -0400, Richard Heck wrote: > On 04/12/2016 04:42 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > Le 12/04/2016 04:09, Richard Heck a écrit : > >> I propose to create a 2.3.staging branch so development can proceed. We > >> did this with this 2.1 cycle. Alternatively, we

Re: master is locked for 2.2.0rc1 preparation

On 04/12/2016 04:42 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 12/04/2016 04:09, Richard Heck a écrit : >> I propose to create a 2.3.staging branch so development can proceed. We >> did this with this 2.1 cycle. Alternatively, we could create a >> 2.2.0.fixes branch, from which 2.2.0 will be tagged, and

Re: master is locked for 2.2.0rc1 preparation

Le 12/04/2016 04:09, Richard Heck a écrit : I propose to create a 2.3.staging branch so development can proceed. We did this with this 2.1 cycle. Alternatively, we could create a 2.2.0.fixes branch, from which 2.2.0 will be tagged, and you can have full control over that. Why don't we branch

Re: master is locked for 2.2.0rc1 preparation

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:38:28PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote: > On 04/11/2016 10:19 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:09:32PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote: > >> On 04/11/2016 09:49 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > >>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 07:05:55PM -0400, Scott Kostyshak

Re: master is locked for 2.2.0rc1 preparation

On 04/11/2016 10:19 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:09:32PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote: >> On 04/11/2016 09:49 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 07:05:55PM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote: Dear all, Please do not commit to master. I am doing

Re: master is locked for 2.2.0rc1 preparation

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 10:09:32PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote: > On 04/11/2016 09:49 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 07:05:55PM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > >> Dear all, > >> > >> Please do not commit to master. I am doing some final compilation tests > >> and checks and

Re: master is locked for 2.2.0rc1 preparation

On 04/11/2016 09:49 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 07:05:55PM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> Please do not commit to master. I am doing some final compilation tests >> and checks and will soon tag and tar 2.2.0rc1. > Compilation tests and other checks went

Re: master is locked for 2.2.0rc1 preparation

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 07:05:55PM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > Dear all, > > Please do not commit to master. I am doing some final compilation tests > and checks and will soon tag and tar 2.2.0rc1. Compilation tests and other checks went well. Commits have been pushed. Master branch is now

master is locked for 2.2.0rc1 preparation

Dear all, Please do not commit to master. I am doing some final compilation tests and checks and will soon tag and tar 2.2.0rc1. Scott signature.asc Description: PGP signature