On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:18:00AM -0400, Richard Heck wrote: > On 04/26/2017 07:56 AM, Uwe Stöhr wrote: > > Hi Scott, > > > > Why not taking current master and name it Alpha 2? I don't think it is > > important how many alphas we release. > > > > If you don't agree, then let's better wait for the alpha2 you like to > > release. Having a Win version for alpha1 is indeed not very important. > > I think the hope was that there not be an alpha 2, but that we go > straight to beta 1. And before we do that, we definitely need testing on > Windows. As you know, we have few developers who use Windows, so we do > not get as much testing there during the development cycle, and Windows > bugs do often emerege at alpha or beta. > > The reason to name it alpha1-1 is that it is essentially alpha 1. > > So...
That reasoning makes sense. Thank you. > > Should I create a branch from alpha1-1 and cherry pick only Kornel's > > fixes? > > Yes, that is what I would do: Call it 2.3-alpha1-1 or something like that. I did the following git commands. I called the branch 2.3-alpha1-x and I will call the tag 2.3-alpha1-1: git checkout 2.3.0alpha1 git checkout -b 2.3.0-alpha1-x git cherry-pick -x c1ee1bc0 git cherry-pick -x db8069c # made changes to ANNOUNCE file git add ANNOUNCE git commit -m "Update ANNOUNCE for LyX 2.3.0alpha1-1" Kornel, can you confirm that the two commits I cherry-picked are correct? I would not be surprised if more changes are needed, but we won't know until I send Uwe a new tar ball to test. So I will not push the "This is LyX 2.3.0alpha1-1" commit. I will make it locally and send Uwe the tar ball and wait for confirmation that the build was successful before committing. Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
