Owen OMalley 2012-09-04, 18:55
Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli 2012-09-04, 19:19
Robert Evans 2012-09-04, 22:05
Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli 2012-09-05, 00:29
Robert Evans 2012-09-05, 14:25
Eli Collins 2012-09-05, 15:52
If it's all the same to you, I'd prefer you leave the branch, or at least a
tag, and just ignore it. We're pretty far away from branch-2.1.0 following
branch-2 but started from that point.
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Eli Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Owen O'Malley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > While cleaning up the subversion branches, I thought more about the
> > branch 2 release names. I'm concerned if we backtrack and reuse
> > release numbers it will be extremely confusing to users. It also
> > creates problems for tools like Maven that parse version numbers and
> > expect a left to right release numbering scheme (eg. 2.1.1-alpha >
> > 2.1.0). It also seems better to keep on the 2.0.x minor release until
> > after we get a GA release off of the 2.0 branch.
> > Therefore, I'd like to propose:
> > 1. rename branch-2.0.1-alpha -> branch-2.0
> > 2. delete branch-2.1.0-alpha
> > 3. stabilizing goes into branch-2.0 until it gets to GA
> > 4. features go into branch-2 and will be branched into branch-2.1 later
> > 5. The release tags can have the alpha/beta tags on them.
> > Thoughts?
Owen OMalley 2012-09-06, 16:27
Andrew Purtell 2012-09-06, 16:29
Arun C Murthy 2012-09-06, 18:18
Arun C Murthy 2012-09-06, 18:38
Arun C Murthy 2012-09-06, 18:41