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
-Re: Branch 2 release names
Robert Evans 2012-09-05, 14:25
I must have misread it. Thanks for clarifying.
From: Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
Reply-To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
Date: Tuesday, September 4, 2012 7:29 PM
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>
Subject: Re: Branch 2 release names
May be you misread the proposal. This is only about nuking 2.1.0-alpha and wait for 0.23.3 to be stabilized and released. Once that happens, we can create a branch-2.1 off branch-2.
Does that sound okay?
+Vinod Kumar Vavilapalli
On Sep 4, 2012, at 3:05 PM, Robert Evans wrote:
I am fine with that too, but it is going to be a fairly large amount of
work to pull in all of the bug fixes into 2.0 that have gone into 0.23.
There was already a lot of discussion about just rebasing 2.1 instead of
trying to merge everything back into it and 2.1 is a lot further along
then 2.0 is. Just something to be aware of.
Eli Collins 2012-09-05, 15:52
Andrew Purtell 2012-09-05, 18:04
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