> Why do we even drop stable branches? If anything, it introduces
> unneeded problems to those who have their scripts/cookbooks set to
> chase those branches. They would need to switch to eol tag.
Because they would otherwise expect updates which will never come.
They should take a notice and remo
We can do the opposite to avoid more and more ACLs:
ALLOW push on some specific stable branches
[access "refs/heads/stable/kilo"]
push = allow group ***-stable-maint
[access "refs/heads/stable/juno"]
push = allow group ***-stable-maint
BLOCK push on others stable branches
[access "refs/he
argh
BLOCK push on others stable branches
[access "refs/heads/stable/*"]
push = block group "Anonymous Users"
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 6:34 PM, ZZelle wrote:
> We can do the opposite to avoid more and more ACLs:
>
> ALLOW push on some specific stable branches
>
> [access "refs/heads/stable/
On 2015-06-04 16:23:12 +0200 (+0200), Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> Why do we even drop stable branches? If anything, it introduces
> unneeded problems to those who have their scripts/cookbooks set to
> chase those branches. They would need to switch to eol tag. Why not
> just leaving them sitting there
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 06/04/2015 04:15 PM, Alan Pevec wrote:
The only open question I have is if we need to do an Icehouse
point release prior to the tag and dropping the branch, but I
don't think that's happened in the past with branch end of
life
