OK, for the sake of peace I will concede to no stable branch so that we can move on. If it doesn't work well we can always change it.

Everyone else please voice your opinions still so we can get agreement on this. We don't all have to agree which is why we discuss. :)

On Jun 6, 2013, at 9:37 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Kris Borchers <kris@redhat.com> wrote:

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:
> 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

My take on this:

-1 for the stable label - if people want stable, they want releases

I do not like -stable as well. And yes. the _final_ TAG is the release. I do agree here!

Can you, and everyone else be more specific here. Do you not like the label, or the whole idea of a stable branch?

Not liking "stable branch". For me that is a TAG (immutable). 

 

+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) :)