Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cf-dev] Branching strategy
Hi,
if no much dev is planned for 2.0 now we can also say the master is 1.X and wait for more commitment to 2.X for creating the 2.X branch?
Anyway Leshan needs the last Cf fixes so we are willing to release a bugfix release ASAP.

Julien

--
Julien Vermillard

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Kovatsch Matthias <kovatsch@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi

 

I would use the master for the 2.0 development, basically just like Julien described it.

Apparently, we should merge the blockwise-no-rst branch for 1.0.1, the RD stuff, and the Scandium fixes you worked on.

 

Ciao

Matthias

 

 

From: cf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Simon Bernard
Sent: Dienstag, 5. Januar 2016 16:36
To: Californium (Cf) developer discussions <cf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [cf-dev] Branching strategy

 

That's what we do for eclipse LDT, this works well.

Le 05/01/2016 16:23, Julien Vermillard a écrit :

Hi,

I think it depends of what we want to do for 2.0.

if it's a full active fork I think we can have 2.0 dev in the master and create a 1.0 branch for 1.0 fixes.

1.0.x releases will be tagged from 1.0 branch.

2.0 milestone releases will be done from the master.

If of course the most active branch is 1.0 we can do it reverse way: a 2.0 branch for 2.0 dev and 1.0 fix in the master.

My 2 cents.


--
Julien Vermillard

 

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Hudalla Kai (INST/ESY) <Kai.Hudalla@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi committers,

over the holidays I spent some time trying to figure out a workable branching strategy for Californium that would allow us to go on with developing new features and re-factoring code while at the same time always be able to publish bug fix releases and have a stable reference code base that can be used for deployment.

Now that we have shipped the 1.0.0 release of Californium I think it is time to more formally define the branching rules we want to follow in order to achieve these goals. We already feel the need to create a 1.0.1 bug-fix release that would allow Leshan to (finally) use a relased version of Californium ...

I stumbled across this nice blog post [1] by Vincent Driessen which, from my point of view, looks like a good candidate for our purposes.
What do you think?

Regards,
Kai

_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev

 




_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev

 


_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev

Back to the top