Re: Staging Branches

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: >>> can we merge the painting branch into 2.3.1 staging? I'm inclusively >>> working on master without larger issues for quite some time now. That does >>> not say anything about mac/win arch, but the sooner we start testing the >>> better. >> I'd be happy to have it

Re: Staging Branches

Le 14/02/2018 à 18:54, Richard Heck a écrit : can we merge the painting branch into 2.3.1 staging? I'm inclusively working on master without larger issues for quite some time now. That does not say anything about mac/win arch, but the sooner we start testing the better. I'd be happy to have it

Re: Staging Branches

Pavel Sanda wrote: > Richard Heck wrote: > > If we don't need to do anything > > super-fast, then I'll just merge 2.3.2-staging into 2.3.1-staging. > > I see, sounds good. Pavel When I think more about it though, if *getting the branch tested* from other devs is important goal of yours, then the

Re: Staging Branches

Richard Heck wrote: > If we don't need to do anything > super-fast, then I'll just merge 2.3.2-staging into 2.3.1-staging. I see, sounds good. Pavel

Re: Staging Branches

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 06:40:28PM +, Richard Heck wrote: > On 02/14/2018 01:09 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote: > > Richard Heck wrote: > >>> can we merge the painting branch into 2.3.1 staging? > >>> I'm inclusively working on master without larger issues for quite some > >>> time > >>> now. That

Re: Staging Branches

On 02/14/2018 01:09 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Richard Heck wrote: >>> can we merge the painting branch into 2.3.1 staging? >>> I'm inclusively working on master without larger issues for quite some time >>> now. That does not say anything about mac/win arch, but the sooner we start >>> testing the

Re: Staging Branches

Richard Heck wrote: > > can we merge the painting branch into 2.3.1 staging? > > I'm inclusively working on master without larger issues for quite some time > > now. That does not say anything about mac/win arch, but the sooner we start > > testing the better. > > I'd be happy to have it in

Re: Staging Branches

On 02/14/2018 12:17 PM, Pavel Sanda wrote: > Richard Heck wrote: >> I've just created two staging branches: 2.3.1-staging and 2.3.2-staging. >> Rules for committing to these are the same as for stable branch, i.e., >> clear it with me first. > Richard/JMarc, > > can we merge the painting branch

Re: Staging Branches

On 02/14/2018 11:13 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > Am Mittwoch, den 14.02.2018, 10:15 -0500 schrieb Richard Heck: >> I've just created two staging branches: 2.3.1-staging and 2.3.2- >> staging. >> Rules for committing to these are the same as for stable branch, >> i.e., >> clear it with me first.

Re: Staging Branches

Richard Heck wrote: > I've just created two staging branches: 2.3.1-staging and 2.3.2-staging. > Rules for committing to these are the same as for stable branch, i.e., > clear it with me first. Richard/JMarc, can we merge the painting branch into 2.3.1 staging? I'm inclusively working on master

Re: Staging Branches

Am Mittwoch, den 14.02.2018, 10:15 -0500 schrieb Richard Heck: > I've just created two staging branches: 2.3.1-staging and 2.3.2- > staging. > Rules for committing to these are the same as for stable branch, > i.e., > clear it with me first. > > As usual, the reason to create these is that we

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

Am Dienstag, 19. April 2016 um 21:05:57, schrieb Georg Baum > Richard Heck wrote: > > > The other two 2.2.x-staging branches are entirely for book-keeping > > purposes. It is just easier for me to have the various fixes that are > > intended for 2.2.1 and 2.2.2

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

On 04/19/2016 03:05 PM, Georg Baum wrote: > Richard Heck wrote: > >> The other two 2.2.x-staging branches are entirely for book-keeping >> purposes. It is just easier for me to have the various fixes that are >> intended for 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 in git branches rather than to try to keep >> track of

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

Richard Heck wrote: > The other two 2.2.x-staging branches are entirely for book-keeping > purposes. It is just easier for me to have the various fixes that are > intended for 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 in git branches rather than to try to keep > track of them via milestones or keywords or whatever in

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

On 04/19/2016 04:49 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:07:01PM +0200, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: >>> We should already be on 2.2 and not on master, which is the future: 2.3 >>> >> Yes, that was also my proposal. >> >> However, people appear to be afraid to not have the

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:07:01PM +0200, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > > > > We should already be on 2.2 and not on master, which is the future: 2.3 > > > > Yes, that was also my proposal. > > However, people appear to be afraid to not have the 2.2.0 tag in master. Yes, I was the scared one.

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

Peter Kümmel wrote: > I also think these branches are overkill. +1 Pavel

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

On 04/18/2016 05:07 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > > > > > > We should already be on 2.2 and not on master, which is the future: 2.3 > > > > Yes, that was also my proposal. > > However, people appear to be afraid to not have the 2.2.0 tag in master. > > But note that if the 2.2-branch in this

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

On 04/18/2016 05:02 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote: > Am 18. April 2016 22:56:06 MESZ, schrieb Richard Heck : >> On 04/18/2016 04:32 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote: >>> Am 18. April 2016 22:29:51 MESZ, schrieb "Peter Kümmel" >> : I also think these branches are overkill.

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

> > We should already be on 2.2 and not on master, which is the future: 2.3 > Yes, that was also my proposal. However, people appear to be afraid to not have the 2.2.0 tag in master. But note that if the 2.2-branch in this scenario is merged back into master after the release, it is equivalent

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

Am 18. April 2016 22:56:06 MESZ, schrieb Richard Heck : >On 04/18/2016 04:32 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote: >> Am 18. April 2016 22:29:51 MESZ, schrieb "Peter Kümmel" >: >>> I also think these branches are overkill. >>> >>> I would only use master and 2.2. No 2.3, it

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

On 04/18/2016 04:32 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote: > Am 18. April 2016 22:29:51 MESZ, schrieb "Peter Kümmel" : >> I also think these branches are overkill. >> >> I would only use master and 2.2. No 2.3, it is so far away that it could be >> in master. >> >> 2.2 should be always

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

Am 18. April 2016 22:29:51 MESZ, schrieb "Peter Kümmel" : >Am 18. April 2016 21:28:04 MESZ, schrieb Georg Baum >: >>Richard Heck wrote: >> >>> We now have three staging branches. These are: >>> >>> 2.3-staging >>> 2.2.1-staging >>>

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

Am 18. April 2016 22:29:51 MESZ, schrieb "Peter Kümmel" : >Am 18. April 2016 21:28:04 MESZ, schrieb Georg Baum >: >>Richard Heck wrote: >> >>> We now have three staging branches. These are: >>> >>> 2.3-staging >>> 2.2.1-staging >>>

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

Am 18. April 2016 21:28:04 MESZ, schrieb Georg Baum : >Richard Heck wrote: > >> We now have three staging branches. These are: >> >> 2.3-staging >> 2.2.1-staging >> 2.2.2-staging > >That makes 5 active branches in total (please correct me if I

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

Richard Heck wrote: > We now have three staging branches. These are: > > 2.3-staging > 2.2.1-staging > 2.2.2-staging That makes 5 active branches in total (please correct me if I misunderstood something): 2.1.x => will become 2.1.5 master => will become 2.2.0

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

On 04/16/2016 04:25 PM, Guillaume Munch wrote: > Le 16/04/2016 20:44, Richard Heck a écrit : >> >> We now have three staging branches. These are: >> >> 2.3-staging >> 2.2.1-staging >> 2.2.2-staging >> >> >> 2.3-staging can be treated as master usually is: It is for development >> on

Re: Staging Branches [REVISED]

Le 16/04/2016 20:44, Richard Heck a écrit : We now have three staging branches. These are: 2.3-staging 2.2.1-staging 2.2.2-staging 2.3-staging can be treated as master usually is: It is for development on what will become 2.3 and is now open for commits. This branch will be

Re: Staging Branches

On 04/16/2016 01:45 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 16/04/16 19:31, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : >> On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 08:34:47AM -0400, Richard Heck wrote: >> >>> As usual, fixes for bugs committed to 2.2.1-staging (=2.2.x) should >>> first be >>> committed to 2.3-staging (=master). These

Re: Staging Branches

On 04/16/2016 01:31 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 08:34:47AM -0400, Richard Heck wrote: > >> As usual, fixes for bugs committed to 2.2.1-staging (=2.2.x) should first be >> committed to 2.3-staging (=master). These should be marked "fixedinmaster" >> in trac but NOT

Re: Staging Branches

On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 07:04:01PM +0100, Guillaume Munch wrote: > Le 16/04/2016 18:55, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : > > On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 07:45:29PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > > Le 16/04/16 19:31, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : > > > > On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 08:34:47AM -0400, Richard

Re: Staging Branches

Le 16/04/2016 18:55, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 07:45:29PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Le 16/04/16 19:31, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 08:34:47AM -0400, Richard Heck wrote: As usual, fixes for bugs committed to 2.2.1-staging (=2.2.x) should

Re: Staging Branches

On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 07:45:29PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 16/04/16 19:31, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : > > On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 08:34:47AM -0400, Richard Heck wrote: > > > > > As usual, fixes for bugs committed to 2.2.1-staging (=2.2.x) should first > > > be > > > committed to

Re: Staging Branches

Le 16/04/16 19:31, Scott Kostyshak a écrit : On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 08:34:47AM -0400, Richard Heck wrote: As usual, fixes for bugs committed to 2.2.1-staging (=2.2.x) should first be committed to 2.3-staging (=master). These should be marked "fixedinmaster" in trac but NOT "fixedinstable" and

Re: Staging Branches

On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 08:34:47AM -0400, Richard Heck wrote: > As usual, fixes for bugs committed to 2.2.1-staging (=2.2.x) should first be > committed to 2.3-staging (=master). These should be marked "fixedinmaster" > in trac but NOT "fixedinstable" and tagged with milestone 2.2.1. So now

Re: Staging Branches

On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 10:33:46AM -0400, Richard Heck wrote: > On 04/16/2016 09:30 AM, Kornel Benko wrote: > > Does it mean, the master is closed? Or in other words, what happens if > > someone commits in master? > > My understanding is that master is still closed, except for absolutely >

Re: Staging Branches

On 04/16/2016 09:30 AM, Kornel Benko wrote: > Am Samstag, 16. April 2016 um 08:34:47, schrieb Richard Heck >> I have just created two staging branches, as discussed in a previous >> thread. These are: >> >> 2.3-staging >> 2.2.1-staging >> >> The former can be treated

Re: Staging Branches

Am Samstag, 16. April 2016 um 08:34:47, schrieb Richard Heck > > I have just created two staging branches, as discussed in a previous > thread. These are: > > 2.3-staging > 2.2.1-staging > > The former can be treated as master usually is: It is for development on