Excerpts from Doug Hellmann's message of 2016-06-08 14:13:44 -0400:
> tl;dr: The switch from pre-versioning to post-versioning means that
> sometimes master appears to be older than stable/$previous, so we
> merge "final" tags from stable/$previous into master to make up for
> it. This introduces
Doug Hellmann wrote:
Excerpts from John Dickinson's message of 2016-06-08 11:30:03 -0700:
Isn't the reason that the branch is merged back in because otherwise per can't
generate a valid version number?
I don't think it's related to versions being "valid," but to making
things feel less
Excerpts from John Dickinson's message of 2016-06-08 11:30:03 -0700:
>
> On 8 Jun 2016, at 11:13, Doug Hellmann wrote:
>
> > tl;dr: The switch from pre-versioning to post-versioning means that
> > sometimes master appears to be older than stable/$previous, so we
> > merge "final" tags from
On 8 Jun 2016, at 11:13, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> tl;dr: The switch from pre-versioning to post-versioning means that
> sometimes master appears to be older than stable/$previous, so we
> merge "final" tags from stable/$previous into master to make up for
> it. This introduces versions into the
tl;dr: The switch from pre-versioning to post-versioning means that
sometimes master appears to be older than stable/$previous, so we
merge "final" tags from stable/$previous into master to make up for
it. This introduces versions into the history of master that aren't
*really* there, but git sees
