Also fine for me, as long as we reach consensus any time while its still 2016 ;-)
Can we then agree on the following:
1)
Prepare and release 1.0.1 ASAP on current “master”
2)
Merge core, scandium, element-connector into californium repo
3)
Create “master-1.x” branch so that I can start working on 1.1.0 features
Kai
From: cf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Julien Vermillard
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 11:18 AM
To: Californium (Cf) developer discussions
Subject: Re: [cf-dev] Branching strategy
I'm more for merging fixies in the master now and releasing the bug fix 1.0.1 now.
Then you are really willing to start 1.1.X dev now? if so I would like to merge some repos first (Cf,Ec,Sc) before creating the branch.
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 9:46 AM, Hudalla Kai (INST/ESY) <Kai.Hudalla@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I propose to create the following branches:
1)
a „master-1.x“ branch off of the 1.0.0 tag on which we develop and release the 1.x minor versions
2)
a “hotfix-1.0.x” branch off of the 1.0.0 tag on which we develop and release the 1.0.x bugifx versions
Once we have created additional minor relases on the “master-1.x” branch, e.g. “1.1.0”,
we can branch off additional hotfix branches off the corresponding tags, e.g. a “hotfix-1.1.x” branch off of the “1.1.0” tag.
We use “master” for development and initial release of “2.0.0”. Then we branch off a
“master-2.x” branch off of that tag and so on …
We only need to make sure that we merge the (relevant) changes from the “hotfix-*” to
the “master-*” to the “master” branches (if applicable).
What do you think?
Kai
That's what I also thought about. We should create a "1.0.0 hotfix branch" from the 1.0.0 tag on which we create 1.0.1, 1.0.2 etc and in addition to that also create a 1.x. branch
for creating additional minor releases 1.1.0, 1.2.0 etc.
Indeed. Not sure if we want to be on the safe side and even have a 1.0.x branch for
more emergency fixes, since new features in 1.1.x might take a while until they are releasable. Probably we can do this on demand from an older commit then.
To: Californium (Cf) developer discussions <cf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [cf-dev] Branching strategy
+1 for first releasing 1.0.1, then merging Scandium, element-connector & core into californium repo. It think we can keep tools and actinium separate (and have
separate versioning for them).
Regarding the branching model: my understanding currently is that we will do development of 2.0 on master and create a 1.x branch based on the 1.0.1 tag (once
we released that), right?
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
|