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