Re: [cf-dev] Branching strategy

[Julien Vermillard <jvermillard@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I think it depends of what we want to do for 2.0.

if it's a full active fork I think we can have 2.0 dev in the master and create a 1.0 branch for 1.0 fixes.

1.0.x releases will be tagged from 1.0 branch.

2.0 milestone releases will be done from the master.

If of course the most active branch is 1.0 we can do it reverse way: a 2.0 branch for 2.0 dev and 1.0 fix in the master.

My 2 cents.

--
Julien Vermillard

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Hudalla Kai (INST/ESY) <Kai.Hudalla@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi committers,

over the holidays I spent some time trying to figure out a workable branching strategy for Californium that would allow us to go on with developing new features and re-factoring code while at the same time always be able to publish bug fix releases and have a stable reference code base that can be used for deployment.

Now that we have shipped the 1.0.0 release of Californium I think it is time to more formally define the branching rules we want to follow in order to achieve these goals. We already feel the need to create a 1.0.1 bug-fix release that would allow Leshan to (finally) use a relased version of Californium ...

I stumbled across this nice blog post [1] by Vincent Driessen which, from my point of view, looks like a good candidate for our purposes.
What do you think?

Regards,
Kai

_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev