Thanks! To clarify, yes, I was just being silly. We mostly use the base.version in build.xml for version checking and we can special-case branch names like we do for trunk, if the needed.
-- Michael On 09/29/2016 08:17 AM, Sylvain Lebresne wrote: > And of course I've been retarded and created a '3.X' branch with is > completely inconsistent with our usual branch naming. So I actually just > renamed that to 'cassandra-3.X' instead. I apologize for the inconvenience > if any (there hasn't been any commit since I created the branch though, so > hopefully nobody was inconvenienced). > > Again, my bad, but we should be good to go now. > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Sylvain Lebresne <sylv...@datastax.com> > wrote: > >> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
