I'm not sure if we really need branches, maybe just tags? https://github.com/torquebox/torquebox for example has been working with tags, branches at least to me might lead to confusion.


--
"The measure of a man is what he does with power" - Plato
-
@abstractj
-
Volenti Nihil Difficile

On Friday, March 22, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Sebastien Blanc wrote:

> +1 to create a 1.0.0 branch
> For 1.0.1 not sure if it has to be also branch or just the master otherwise Master should be for 1.1 stuff ?
> Seb
>
>
>

> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Daniel Bevenius <daniel.bevenius@gmail.com (mailto:daniel.bevenius@gmail.com)> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'd like to discuss how to handle maintenance branches. Sorry if this has already been discussed, I think Kris posted something about this but I was not able to find it.
> >
> > For example, now that we are about to release 1.0.0 we will tag that release. After that should we create a 1.0.1 branch for patches/bugfixes and then continue with new features in master?
> >
> > Since we are in a waiting state at the moment, which could happen again, should we perhaps create a branch named 1.0.0, which we can use until the release and then tag it and remove that branch. After that any issues would be fixed in the 1.0.1 branch.
> >
> > Does this sound correct?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > /Dan
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > aerogear-dev mailing list

> > aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org (mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org)
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org (mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org)
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev