On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 19:57:33 -0800, William Barker wrote:
I would wait until after the TLP move for any big SCM changes.
I guess that the git repository won't be affected.
Anyways, nothing will be lost if some changes are in order, so
I don't see why work has to be put on hold.
I'm not clear on what problem is trying to be solved here. Git
branches are
cheap, so create as many as you like for experimental changes, but I
doubt
the PMC would agree to release from such a branch
It looks like you are not aware of the background of this question:
http://markmail.org/message/7lnus64entdwj4vo
Gilles
On Wednesday, February 3, 2016, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>
wrote:
Hello.
Shall we go forward with the creation of a branch named
"development", and stop committing to "master" (which, by
convention, should only contain tags of released code)?
Shall we also adopt a convention for feature branches, like
names that are prefixed with "f-" or "feature-", to make it
visible that they are WIP to be merged in "development"?
[IOW, as a reminder that those branches should not exist
for a long time, and should be deleted after the merge.]
Perhaps even clearer would be to attach a JIRA report
number to the name, like "feature-MATH-1319", so that we do
not forget to open a corresponding issue.
Regards,
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
