So, this is done now and I've renamed the version on trunk to 4.0, so be sure to commit/merge to 3.X before going to trunk from now on.
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Sylvain Lebresne <sylv...@datastax.com> wrote: > As there has been no strong objection, I'm going to proceed and create the > branch. > > Note that I'm discarding Michael remark as a joke due to the use of a > smiley, but just in case that was a genuine concern, I'll argue that 1) > 'trunk' isn't really more arithmetic friendly so I don't think there is too > much reliance on this for branch names out there and 2) I really don't care > about the branch name, 3.X just feels the more natural, but if something > thing just calling it '3' or something else would be better, be my guest > and rename it. > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Michael Shuler <mich...@pbandjelly.org> > wrote: > >> I foresee many arithmetic errors with 3.X.. :) >> >> -- >> Michael >> >> On 09/27/2016 05:18 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote: >> > We have a number of tickets that we now have to wait on 4.0 due to >> needing a >> > messaging protocol change or major sstable format ( >> https://goo.gl/OvqNQp), >> > and >> > we currently have no branch for those. And as 4.0 was initially >> supposed to >> > come >> > after 3.11, which is coming, it's probably time to have a home for those >> > tickets. >> > >> > And as 4.0 should probably be the 'trunk' (at least it's how we've >> always >> > done), >> > I'm proposing to create a new '3.X' branch from trunk as home for the >> > remaining >> > 3.x tick-tock release. In that configuration, the merge path will >> become: >> > >> > 2.1 -> 2.2 -> 3.0 -> 3.X -> trunk (future 4.0) >> > >> > Any strong objection to me creating that branch? >> > >> > Sylvain Lebresne >> > >> >> >
