Thanks Sylvain - since we have a few new folks, can you poke the docs on committing to include a bit about the merge order?
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 2:56 AM, Michael Shuler <mich...@pbandjelly.org> wrote: > 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
