> On Nov 12, 2016, at 12:44 PM, Rainer Müller <rai...@macports.org> wrote: > >> On 2016-11-12 17:39, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> >> Perhaps it should more properly be called 2.4, but since our master >> is in no fix state to be branched for 2.4 at this time and we are >> still figuring out our release process on GitHub, it might be >> simpler to do this next release from the 2.3 branch and call it >> 2.3.5. > > master is definitely not in a state to be released, but the roadmap > should be discussed separately. Changing the maintainers would be the > only breaking change we would add. If we say this absolutely requires a > new 2.x release, we could also branch release-2.4 from release-2.3 and > call the next release 2.4.0.
Branching release-2.4 from release-2.3 seems fine to me. I don't think our decision on versioning should be affected (much) by a desire to branch from master. > For the multi-valued maintainers itself, I still do not like its > verbosity in 'port info', but I am also out of new ideas how to improve > it. I'm not fond of it either, but we can refine it later. > As the internal Portfile representation is now set and I am not aware > of any third-party software that would be affected by the maintainers > change, I would also be fine with including it in 2.3.5. Ditto. I'd be fine with 2.4 also. vq
