[aerogear-dev] Maintenance branches

[Bruno Oliveira]

Hi Dan, I believe that we will stick with the following approach http://aerogear-dev.1069024.n5.nabble.com/aerogear-dev-RFC-Initial-Versioning-Policy-td1914.html



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



On Friday, March 22, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Daniel Bevenius wrote:

> > I'm not sure if we really need branches, maybe just tags?
> 
> Not sure how that would work but I'd be interested to learn. I could not determine just by looking at the torguebox repo as then have branches for what looks like maintenance/dev releases (and also tags of course) 
> As long as we all do the same I'm happy. 
> 
> 
> 
> On 22 March 2013 10:23, Bruno Oliveira <bruno at abstractj.org (mailto:bruno at abstractj.org)> wrote:
> > 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 at gmail.com (mailto:daniel.bevenius at gmail.com) (mailto:daniel.bevenius at 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 at lists.jboss.org (mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org) (mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org)
> > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > > aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org (mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org) (mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org)
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > aerogear-dev mailing list
> > aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org (mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org)
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org (mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org)
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev