On Mar 22, 2013, at 10:16 AM, Douglas Campos <qmx(a)qmx.me> wrote:
On 22/03/2013, at 09:32, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> I definitely think branches are necessary. Just from my experience with jQuery, this
has worked well.
>
> When a new stable, minor version is released, a branch is created for it. So we would
create a 1.0-stable branch or something like that. When bugs are fixed, they are fixed in
master, then cherry-picked over to the current stable branch. When we are ready for a
patch release (1.0.1 for example), that can be tagged directly from the 1.0-stable branch
and all of those bug fixes already exist in master.
I agree, with the added difference that I don't think we should start creating
branches until needed. If there's a bug to be fixed for 1.0.x series then we can go
and create the branch.
I don't think we need a branch for a bug fix though. We would already have a 1.0.x
branch since it would need to be separate from master and a 1.0.1 would just be a tag off
of the 1.0.x branch. No need for more branches until a minor or major release.
(/me slightly remembers a project full of phantom branches without changes)
-- qmx
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev