Re: [cf-dev] Branching strategy

[Kai <sophokles.kh@xxxxxxxxx>]

That's what I also thought about. We should create a "1.0.0 hotfix branch" from the 1.0.0 tag on which we create 1.0.1, 1.0.2 etc and in addition to that also create a 1.x. branch for creating additional minor releases 1.1.0, 1.2.0 etc. 

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 6:01 PM Kovatsch Matthias <kovatsch@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Indeed. Not sure if we want to be on the safe side and even have a 1.0.x branch for more emergency fixes, since new features in 1.1.x might take a while until they are releasable. Probably we can do this on demand from an older commit then.

 

 

From: cf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cf-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kai
Sent: Donnerstag, 14. Januar 2016 17:58

To: Californium (Cf) developer discussions <cf-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [cf-dev] Branching strategy

 

+1 for first releasing 1.0.1, then merging Scandium, element-connector & core into californium repo. It think we can keep tools and actinium separate (and have separate versioning for them).

Regarding the branching model: my understanding currently is that we will do development of 2.0 on master and create a 1.x branch based on the 1.0.1 tag (once we released that), right?

_______________________________________________
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