> On Nov 12, 2016, at 2:03 PM, Lawrence Velázquez <lar...@macports.org> wrote: > >> 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.
We've never done anything like that before and I don't know what all the consequences would be. > I don't think > our decision on versioning should be affected (much) by a desire to > branch from master. One consequence that occurs to me is that people using master currently have version 2.3.99. If we branch 2.4 from 2.3, then when those users run selfupdate they would be "upgraded" to 2.4 which doesn't contain all the features they had been using on 2.3.99. In the 2 years of master development, we might have done many things, such as adding columns to the registry database, that would make it bad for the user to downgrade.
