incubator-blur-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron McCurry <amccu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Getting master up to date
Date Fri, 27 Jun 2014 18:27:07 GMT
Ok I agree as well.


On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Andrew <andrew.va@gmail.com> wrote:

> I also like the git flow branching model and have been using it on project
> for a number of years
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Tim Williams <williamstw@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Aaron McCurry <amccurry@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Andrew <andrew.va@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Aaron,
> > >> The link you provided looks like a good strategy for merging 0.2 into
> > >> master.
> > >> My question is whether this is a good time to switch? Is 0.2 released
> > yet?
> > >>
> > >
> > > I think that we should do this when we release 0.2.2 (or 0.2.3 since
> the
> > > 0.2.2 was kind of a bust on the release).
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> >
> > +1, also on going to 0.2.3
> >
> > >> Shouldn't master branch reflect the "released" version of blur?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Well, we haven't had much of a method to our branches/tags/or releases.
> >  I
> > > think it would be good to come up with some rules that are written
> down.
> >  I
> > > feel that others will have a stronger feelings on how the right way to
> > > manage versions of Blur.
> >
> > I don't have strong feelings but this seems sane and is already
> > written down(scroll down to Release branches):
> >
> > http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
> >
> > --tim
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message