[aerogear-dev] Maintenance branches

[Daniel Bevenius]

>I don't think a branch is necessary. If we have something to fix, we
create a temporary branch, fix, merge to master and create a tag for it
I'm not sure I see how using only tags can solve this following issue
(please correct me if I'm wrong):
Lets say we have a bug fix for 1.0.0. This would go out with the release of
1.0.1. But before 1.0.1 is released other features could have been added to
the master branch. So we would then be releasing more than just the bug
fixes for 1.0.1, we would also be releasing any new features added to
master. This is the reason for wanting a branch.




On 22 March 2013 13:22, Daniel Passos <daniel at passos.me> wrote:

> IMO tags work fine.
>
> I don't think a branch is necessary. If we have something to fix, we
> create a temporary branch, fix, merge to master and create a tag for it
>
> Daniel Passos
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 7:03 AM, Bruno Oliveira <bruno at abstractj.org>wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/attachments/20130322/2d10c10a/attachment.html