Обсуждение: release process
The current release / branching seems onerous. I'm wondering if it wouldn't be easier to just have a master branch going forward and just tag releases ?
I'd also like to consider moving away from the numbering scheme paralleling the server numbering scheme
Thoughts ?
Dave Cramer
+1 to both. You can always make a branch later from the tag if you need to release a patch version. > On Feb 18, 2015, at 8:57 AM, Dave Cramer <davecramer@gmail.com> wrote: > > The current release / branching seems onerous. I'm wondering if it wouldn't be easier to just have a master branch goingforward and just tag releases ? > > I'd also like to consider moving away from the numbering scheme paralleling the server numbering scheme > > > Thoughts ? > > Dave Cramer
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Steven Schlansker <stevenschlansker@gmail.com> wrote: > > +1 to both. You can always make a branch later from the tag if you need to release a patch version. > > > On Feb 18, 2015, at 8:57 AM, Dave Cramer <davecramer@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > The current release / branching seems onerous. I'm wondering if it wouldn't be easier to just have a master branch goingforward and just tag releases ? > > > > I'd also like to consider moving away from the numbering scheme paralleling the server numbering scheme > > > > > > Thoughts ? > > > +1 I've always thought the same with source branches. Maybe set a policy to support the current server version plus some number of previous versions? Older than that is on a best effort basis? I think moving away from the server version numbering could be advantageous, particularly as I had made the mistake in the past, that you need to match server and client version. Although changing it now could confuse users as it has historically tracked the server version.