NP, I could have been more clear. I guess I see it this way... this is a Work-In-Progress (wip). As such it has certain implications. In fact I really liked this branch naming convention (borrowed from Vlad) for just this reason.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 8:03 AM Davide D'Alto <dav...@hibernate.org> wrote: > > Well first, I never said it would be deleted after the Alpha. I said it > would be deleted *at some point*, meaning at some point after 6 is moved to > master. > > Sorry, my bad > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org> > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 7:22 AM Davide D'Alto <dav...@hibernate.org> > wrote: > >> > >> +1 for the creation of the branch upstream and everything Yoann said. > >> > >> One curiosity, once there is an alpha, why would you delete the whole > branch? > >> Couldn't you change everything on the existing branch without deleting > it? > >> It's unusual to rewrite the history of upstream branches but we have > >> done it before. > > > > > > Well first, I never said it would be deleted after the Alpha. I said it > would be deleted *at some point*, meaning at some point after 6 is moved to > master. > > > > Also, IMO, topic branches upstream are generally speaking a very bad > idea. So this is something we hardly ever do - maybe y'all do on other > projects, dunno. But either way, it is very common for a topic branch to > go away eventually. > > > > As far as re-writing history, sure it is unusual but we are already in > the realm of unusual merely by having a topic branch upstream > > > _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
