On 02/28/2013 09:12 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
> Stefano Lattarini writes:
>> So we should maybe go (after the next major release) with this naming
>> scheme for the branches?
>>
>> * maint -> for next micro version
>> * stable -> for next minor version
>> * master -> for next major version
>
>
On 02/28/2013 08:59 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
> A second rewrite "undoing" (quotes here since the rewrite can't be
> undone, and me and probably others as well will have to adjust the
> local repo a second time) the first is probably the lesser evil,
> even if it is another branch rewrit
I want to preface this by noting that I think this is really much ado
about nothing. I've done these sorts of non-rewindable branch renamings
before, and while they're mildly annoying, it's pretty rare that there are
tons of people out there with Git clones that aren't following the
development ma
Stefano Lattarini writes:
> So we should maybe go (after the next major release) with this naming
> scheme for the branches?
>
> * maint -> for next micro version
> * stable -> for next minor version
> * master -> for next major version
That seems to match common practice, insofar as I unde
On 2013-02-28 00:39, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> On 02/28/2013 12:00 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>
>> [SNIP]
>>
>> What I meant was that you can use (some of) my above proposed merges
>> to go forward with the new role for master instead of requiring help
>> from Savannah to allow rewriting master.
>>
>
On 02/28/2013 12:00 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
> What I meant was that you can use (some of) my above proposed merges
> to go forward with the new role for master instead of requiring help
> from Savannah to allow rewriting master.
>
So... now are you ok with *completing* my branch renamin
On 02/27/2013 02:07 PM, Nate Bargmann wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
>> Not in this case, as 'master' had several commits lacking in 'maint'.
>
> Would 'git cherry-pick' have worked?
>
No, because those commit were to be *dropped* (not added) from master;
the old 'master' containing them was to be renamed t
On 2013-02-27 11:29, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> On 02/27/2013 10:28 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>
>> [SNIP]
>>
>> The long winding "eyes glossing over" discussion about version numbers
>> had nothing in it about branches, except the initial proposal which
>> stated:
>>
>>* None of 'maint', 'mas
* On 2013 27 Feb 04:32 -0600, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> It also stated:
>
> I also propose the following change to the branching scheme currently
> implemented in the Automake Git repository:
>
> * The 'maint' branch will be reserved to cut of the next micro
> release; so it will just
On 02/27/2013 10:28 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
> The long winding "eyes glossing over" discussion about version numbers
> had nothing in it about branches, except the initial proposal which
> stated:
>
> * None of 'maint', 'master' and 'next' should be rewindable.
>
It also stated
On 2013-02-27 10:28, Peter Rosin wrote:
> The long winding "eyes glossing over" discussion about version numbers
> had nothing in it about branches, except the initial proposal which
> stated:
>
> * None of 'maint', 'master' and 'next' should be rewindable.
>
> I was not aware that 'maste
On 2013-02-26 19:30, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> Hi Peter.
>
> On 02/26/2013 12:53 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> On 2013-02-25 10:16, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Note that the users can avoid branch-rewriting issues by renaming their
>>> 'master' to 'next' and their 'maint' to 'master' before p
On 02/27/2013 02:31 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
> Stefano Lattarini writes:
>> And while you *might* have changed my mind before (because you have
>> valid points, and maybe it would have better to err on the side of
>> safety), I have now already rewritten maint, so rather than messing
>> up by rewrit
On 02/27/2013 02:25 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
> Stefano Lattarini writes:
>> You might have good points, and possibly even be completely right...
>> But I must ask, why didn't you step up during the lengthy discussion
>> about this change, nor objected during the delay (almost a week) that
>> was del
Stefano Lattarini writes:
> And while you *might* have changed my mind before (because you have
> valid points, and maybe it would have better to err on the side of
> safety), I have now already rewritten maint, so rather than messing
> up by rewriting it again (to its old value, granted, but a re
Stefano Lattarini writes:
> You might have good points, and possibly even be completely right...
> But I must ask, why didn't you step up during the lengthy discussion
> about this change, nor objected during the delay (almost a week) that
> was deliberately let pass between the decision and the i
Hi Peter.
On 02/26/2013 12:53 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2013-02-25 10:16, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>
>>
>> Note that the users can avoid branch-rewriting issues by renaming their
>> 'master' to 'next' and their 'maint' to 'master' before pulling. This
>> should probably be stated in a message (
On 2013-02-25 10:16, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> On 02/25/2013 09:14 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> On 2013-02-23 19:06, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>>> On 02/23/2013 06:46 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 02/21/2013 04:06 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> In a couple of days, I will proceed with this
On 02/25/2013 09:14 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2013-02-23 19:06, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> On 02/23/2013 06:46 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>>> On 02/21/2013 04:06 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
In a couple of days, I will proceed with this "branch moving":
* branch-1.13.2 -> mai
On 2013-02-23 19:06, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> On 02/23/2013 06:46 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> On 02/21/2013 04:06 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>>> In a couple of days, I will proceed with this "branch moving":
>>>
>>>* branch-1.13.2 -> maint
>>>* maint -> master
>>>* master -> nex
20 matches
Mail list logo
