I'm for not using branches/repository. This is we do it in NetMQ, all fixes on master + releasing from master. Much simpler. On May 3, 2016 19:27, "Pieter Hintjens" <p...@imatix.com> wrote:
> One note, 'make dist' always fails the first few times because files > are missing. Keep this in mind. The git tarball has the great > advantage of never failing. (And since it makes tarballs look like git > clones it gives the same experience to all developers.) > > I'd vote for killing 'make dist'. It also makes us dependent on autotools. > > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Pieter Hintjens <p...@imatix.com> wrote: > > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Luca Boccassi <luca.bocca...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> Is any of the API I marked as draft actually ready for release? > > > > Even so, leave it 'draft' until it's actually being used. Changing > > minds is expensive otherwise. > > > >> So should we use branches instead for bugfix releases? > > > > All fixes to master. In the extraordinary case where a bugfix release > > cannot be made from master, a branch could work. We never needed this > > in e.g. CZMQ. I doubt we'd need it in libzmq. I absolutely recommend > > against branches unless it's the only option. (And I think we've > > designed ourselves space to never need that option.) > > > >> Isn't it possible to do the github release thing with the result of > >> "make dist"? I think I've read somewhere that you can use the result of > >> CI builds. > > > > Seems Kevin has solved this, almost :) > > > > -Pieter > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev >
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list zeromq-dev@lists.zeromq.org http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
