On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Bruno Oliveira <bruno(a)abstractj.org> wrote:
Hi Matthias, the overall plan looks good to me. Just a question to
make sure I understood.
- on master - Keycloak 1.7.0.Final
yes, and basically upgrading from current 1.5.0 to 1.7.0 - only on master
- on 1.1.x branch - Keycloak 1.5.0.Final
no - will revert that particular fix on the 1.1.x branch, so that the KC
update is "only" on master
> Is that correct?
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Matthias Wessendorf
> > Hi folks,
> > for early Jan, I'd like to get the UPS-1.1.1
> > https://issues.jboss.org/projects/AGPUSH/versions/12327457
> > Not sure we will be doing a 1.1.2 later, but maybe...
given these JIRAs:
> > https://issues.jboss.org/projects/AGPUSH/versions/12323762
> > The next minor version will be 1.2.0:
> > https://issues.jboss.org/projects/AGPUSH/versions/12327301
> > However, I had quick chat w/ Lukas in the morning,
that we already have
> > version update on master, but that really should not be in a 1.1.x patch
> > version.
> > Here is the proposal of what to do:
> > * I branch of master for a 1.1.x patch branch, and on that branch, I
> > rewert the KC update.
> > * Obviously on master we keep the update, but also update the version
> > to 1.2.0-SNAPSHOT
> > Also, since "active" branches are a PITA
(we had that on 1.0.x), the
> idea is
> > that the 1.1.x branch will be deleted ASAP, e.g. once we get out 1.1.1
> > shipped. In case we do a 1.1.2, we'd simple create a new 1.1.x branch of
> > 1.1.1 TAG.
> > But on master, things will be moving forward, towards
> > Any thoughts?
> > -Matthias
> > --
> > Matthias Wessendorf
> > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
> > _______________________________________________
> > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> - abstractj
> aerogear-dev mailing list