On 06/02/2012 02:22 AM, Kevin Kluge wrote:
Well, that's kind off a Citrix question. Is Citrix interested in
having a public branch to work in? From a community perspective it
woudl appear that only the master branch is of interest plus any
feature branches that are public.
I don't get the Citrix question?
Cirtix has released/is releasing their product from the 3.0.x branch. It is
AFAIK
immaterial to the community. However, if Citrix is interested in keeping the
3.0.x branch in the open on the Apache git server, the community should not
remove the branch as Cirtrix is after all also a member of the community.
Thus the Citrix connection and the relevance to this discussion.
Citrix could continue to do commercial releases off the 3.0.x branch even if it
were deleted from the Apache git repo since there are several other places that
would still have 3.0.x.
I'd ask if anyone (besides Citrix) has cause to be interested in the 3.0.x
branch at this point. If not it seems harmless to delete it, and push focus
to master and a new 4.0.x branch.
Have we come to a consensus that we will be working in two different
branches? master and 4.0.x?
I'm still voting for doing all the development in the master branch,
developing new features in a feature branch and merge them in when they
are ready.
When we think the master branch has reached the point of a new release
we tag that release.
A automated build system can then even build packages and tarballs based
on the tags of the master branch.
I don't like working in two different branches, it makes merging in new
stuff extra difficult imho.
Wido
-kevin
