Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cordova.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cordova.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of iclelland@google.com
 designates 209.85.220.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: iclelland@google.com
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKP6k2sLGThYh5WVQg2ehxdWp3OUgb4v-jLQn2eV5Sq7oVvAHg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAKP6k2sLGThYh5WVQg2ehxdWp3OUgb4v-jLQn2eV5Sq7oVvAHg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ian Clelland <iclelland@chromium.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 15:32:13 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAK_TSX+aE4VEp-EGnjoAEXdQu0qpGbdjMy0DD4QHU95kFks3sA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Tag 2.9.1
To: "dev@cordova.apache.org" <dev@cordova.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec501633fb1764104e7b3038f

--bcaec501633fb1764104e7b3038f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Have we done RCs for minor releases before? I don't recall any for 3.0.1 to
3.0.9, and I can't see anything in my email archives from 2.6.1 or 2.8.1.

Not that it's a bad idea; I just don't think it's a formality that has been
observed in the past.

How much back-fill are you expecting?


On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Jesse <purplecabbage@gmail.com> wrote:

> As soon as we are done with 3.1.0 it would be a good time to go back and
> back-fill for a 2,9,1 release.
>
> Who's with me?
> Do we need to do an RC? If so, a quick one?
>
> Cheers,
>   Jesse
>
> @purplecabbage
> risingj.com
>

--bcaec501633fb1764104e7b3038f--