Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
I simply said that I think [that] this is a new feature/improvement and
can't be backported to 2.3 for the 2.3.1 release. If, instead, you was
already talking about "next-minor" then I agree you can backport it
+1
Ok.
This is just the silly nomenclature problem. Next Minor should be v2.4,
since v2.3.x would be just a v2.3 bug fix. Next Major should be v3.0. But
since we haven't agreed on the version names, we're constantly running afoul
of them.
Yes, nomenclature problem: "should" is not "will be".
Imho next-major could even be 2.4 or 2.5 ;-) and we really can't know
this until we'll branch, discuss, vote for it.
But this time the problem is not only nomenclature, it is that you mixed
2.3.1 and next-minor. See bottom...
please create a next-minor branch starting from the v2.3 branch
and backport the code there and not on the 2.3 branch.
The v2.3 branch *is* the next minor branch. We have no need for another.
If, for some reason, we need just a bug fix branch, we can copy from the tag
for 2.3.0. I can rename the branch if it makes you happier. I had planned
to do that earlier, but we can't agree on the names.
--- Noel
No, please! v2.3 branch is for 2.3.1 and we should backport there only
bugfixes. There is already need for the v2.3 branch to be separated by
the next-minor branch because the accept and unbounded cache fixes can
be included in v2.3 branch while the per service/per ip connection limit
can be only committed to the next-minor branch.
If you started working on next-minor please create a next-minor branch
and work there. next-minor is not v2.3, is simply a new branch based on
what we have in v2.3.
So don't rename the branch. v2.3 is there because we already have
backported bugs and we may want to release a 2.3.1 from there. If you're
ready to work on next-minor create a new branch and work there. This is
what we agreed.
simply use "next-minor" as the branch name: there is no need to have an
agreement on version when we already had at least an agreement on the label.
Maybe we decide not to release 2.3.1 and simply release "next-minor" as
2.4.0, or maybe we decide to release a 2.3.1 in a month and release
"next-major" later if we decide not to release "next-minor". We can't
make many plans on next-minor because you are the only one that wanted
to work on it, and you never wrote what exactly you intend to backport
from trunk to next-minor. I think that no one but you have understood
what you're planning for next-minor ;-)
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
