On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Rohit Yadav <rohit.ya...@shapeblue.com> wrote: > Hi, > >> On 12-Nov-2014, at 10:10 pm, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I see your issue, Rohit but I would not like reverting to our old ways >> with reverts for release 'attempts'. This method keeps a cleaner >> history in perspective of code commits as voted off release candidates >> can be thrown away. I am not sure what wisdom is but given the choice >> I want to keep with the new process. > > What’s the use of keeping voted off RCs? Are somehow the release candidates > which did not pass votes useful? I don't want to keep them, why do you think I do?
> > If you want to keep RCs, I propose that all voting cadidates (or RCs) start > with a -rc tag. For example, 4.5.0-rc1 etc. This way you can keep RC tagged > and look it up in future. A lot of projects do it this way. I use the timestamp format for this but in branch format. These branches can be thrown away when voted away. I think this is less of a pollution then the old way. old way: a->a-revert->some improvements->b->b-revert->some improvements->c >> next version new way a->some improvements->b->some improvements->c a branch abandoned, b branch abandonned I am not sure if you are misunderstanding the new way of working or I am misunderstanding your objections to it. -- Daan
