I merged the blockwise notification fix into core, which solved an issue and I committed the RD fixed a few days ago.
This is, my content for 1.0.1 is in the master.
Could you run Leshan tests for a while testing a blockwise Notify operation?
Otherwise you can go ahead and release 1.0.1 when Scandium is ready.
Once this is done, let’s do the following:
1)
Merge californium.element-connector, californium.scandium, and californium.core into californium
2)
Create the branches
a.
hotfix-1.0.x
b.
master-1.x
c.
master-2.x
Is it necessary to branch off the 1.0.0 tag?
From: cf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Hudalla Kai (INST/ESY)
Sent: Freitag, 15. Januar 2016 11:43
To: Californium (Cf) developer discussions <cf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [cf-dev] Branching strategy
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
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
|
