geode-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io>
Subject Re: Ready for release candidate?
Date Wed, 06 Jan 2016 23:35:18 GMT
My thought is that the release branch should be short-lived (in this case hopefully < 2
weeks).  I think it should match the version (which would be 1.0.0-incubating-alpha1).  Then
we can have subsequent release branches for 1.0.0-incubating-alpha2, etc.

I would say that even though alpha1, alpha2, … are stepping stones on the way to a 1.0.0
release it would be good to follow a consistent process.

Anthony


> On Jan 6, 2016, at 3:21 PM, Mark Bretl <asf.mbretl@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I believe we are farther away from the actual '1.0.0' release, so it does
> not make sense to have the long standing release branch. Since
> '1.0.0-ALPHA' is the release name, I would expect the branch name to match.
> This goes for any 'beta', M1, M2, Mx, then final '1.0.0' release branch.
> 
> Those are my thoughts anyway...
> 
> --Mark
> 
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Dan Smith <dsmith@pivotal.io> wrote:
> 
>> One question on the name of the release branch. Shouldn't we be calling it
>> release/1.0.0-incubating and just tag alpha versions off of that branch?
>> Why have multiple branches for the same release?
>> 
>> -Dan
>> 
>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Anthony Baker <abaker@pivotal.io> wrote:
>> 
>>> I suggest that we’re pretty much ready to begin creating the alpha1
>>> release.  I think the first step in the process is to create a release
>>> branch (release/1.0.0-incubating-alpha1) and publish it.  From there we
>> can
>>> finalize any further changes needed (like updates for GEODE-610,
>>> gradle.properties version, etc).  This will allow development to proceed
>> on
>>> the /develop branch without impacting the release.
>>> 
>>> Thoughts?
>>> 
>>> Anthony
>>> 
>>> 
>> 


Mime
View raw message