Can you, and everyone else be more specific here. Do you not like the label, or the whole idea of a stable branch?On Jun 6, 2013, at 9:31 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Douglas Campos <qmx@qmx.me> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 02:56:53PM -0500, Kris Borchers wrote:My take on this:
> So we haven't talked about this for a while so I thought I would stir
> the fire again. Does anyone have any objection to JS managing our
> versions as such:
>
> I would like to move what is currently in master to a 1-0-stable branch
> Then I would like to update master's build version to 1.1.0-pre
> All work is done on the master branch then if the change is applicable
> to 1.0.0, it can be cherry-picked into the 1-0-stable branch
-1 for the stable label - if people want stable, they want releasesI do not like -stable as well. And yes. the _final_ TAG is the release. I do agree here!
_______________________________________________+1 for the version bump - java(ish) projects already does this via
maven-release-plugin (1.1.0-SNAPSHOT) - but I think -pre isn't clear as
-dev is (we use .dev on jruby)I don't have strong feelings for -dev -snapshot, or what ever :-)
IMO both, for example, -dev or -snapshot, make it clear: current dev is here.
So, I am happy with -dev or -snapshot (or -pre) :)
--
qmx
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
aerogear-dev mailing list
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