Renaming branch stable/3.0 to dev/3.0 ???
Curious on an opinion here… Our branches on the github seem to be confusing to newcomers. Most people seem to assume stable/3.0 branch (or master) is the one they should be building from for a stable version. I don’t see much we can do about the master (except maybe update the description to make it clear that this is the most cutting edge version). But I would propose we rename stable/3.0 to dev/3.0 until we get to a more “stable” version of it. I’m also thinking about having some auto-merge of commits from the 3.0 branch into master for the time being (at least for the non-conflicting commits) to keep master up to date. Thoughts? - Martin
Alternatively create a release/2.0 ... Lou On April 12, 2017 9:13:02 PM "Martin Winter" <mwinter@opensourcerouting.org> wrote:
Curious on an opinion here…
Our branches on the github seem to be confusing to newcomers. Most people seem to assume stable/3.0 branch (or master) is the one they should be building from for a stable version.
I don’t see much we can do about the master (except maybe update the description to make it clear that this is the most cutting edge version).
But I would propose we rename stable/3.0 to dev/3.0 until we get to a more “stable” version of it.
I’m also thinking about having some auto-merge of commits from the 3.0 branch into master for the time being (at least for the non-conflicting commits) to keep master up to date.
Thoughts?
- Martin
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@lists.frrouting.org https://lists.frrouting.org/listinfo/dev
On 12 Apr 2017, at 18:55, Lou Berger wrote:
Alternatively create a release/2.0 ...
This would still give the impression that stable/3.0 is a stable version… I rather don’t have stable (or release) in a name until we have something stable. - Martin
On April 12, 2017 9:13:02 PM "Martin Winter" <mwinter@opensourcerouting.org> wrote:
Curious on an opinion here…
Our branches on the github seem to be confusing to newcomers. Most people seem to assume stable/3.0 branch (or master) is the one they should be building from for a stable version.
I don’t see much we can do about the master (except maybe update the description to make it clear that this is the most cutting edge version).
But I would propose we rename stable/3.0 to dev/3.0 until we get to a more “stable” version of it.
I’m also thinking about having some auto-merge of commits from the 3.0 branch into master for the time being (at least for the non-conflicting commits) to keep master up to date.
Thoughts?
- Martin
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@lists.frrouting.org https://lists.frrouting.org/listinfo/dev
Fair enough. Lou On April 13, 2017 7:18:57 AM "Martin Winter" <mwinter@opensourcerouting.org> wrote:
On 12 Apr 2017, at 18:55, Lou Berger wrote:
Alternatively create a release/2.0 ...
This would still give the impression that stable/3.0 is a stable version…
I rather don’t have stable (or release) in a name until we have something stable.
- Martin
On April 12, 2017 9:13:02 PM "Martin Winter" <mwinter@opensourcerouting.org> wrote:
Curious on an opinion here…
Our branches on the github seem to be confusing to newcomers. Most people seem to assume stable/3.0 branch (or master) is the one they should be building from for a stable version.
I don’t see much we can do about the master (except maybe update the description to make it clear that this is the most cutting edge version).
But I would propose we rename stable/3.0 to dev/3.0 until we get to a more “stable” version of it.
I’m also thinking about having some auto-merge of commits from the 3.0 branch into master for the time being (at least for the non-conflicting commits) to keep master up to date.
Thoughts?
- Martin
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@lists.frrouting.org https://lists.frrouting.org/listinfo/dev
I see Martin's point. Does anyone else have a suggestion/thought? donald On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 7:28 AM, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> wrote:
Fair enough.
Lou
On April 13, 2017 7:18:57 AM "Martin Winter" <mwinter@opensourcerouting.org> wrote:
On 12 Apr 2017, at 18:55, Lou Berger wrote:
Alternatively create a release/2.0 ...
This would still give the impression that stable/3.0 is a stable version…
I rather don’t have stable (or release) in a name until we have something stable.
- Martin
On April 12, 2017 9:13:02 PM "Martin Winter" <mwinter@opensourcerouting.org> wrote:
Curious on an opinion here…
Our branches on the github seem to be confusing to newcomers. Most people seem to assume stable/3.0 branch (or master) is the one they should be building from for a stable version.
I don’t see much we can do about the master (except maybe update the description to make it clear that this is the most cutting edge version).
But I would propose we rename stable/3.0 to dev/3.0 until we get to a more “stable” version of it.
I’m also thinking about having some auto-merge of commits from the 3.0 branch into master for the time being (at least for the non-conflicting commits) to keep master up to date.
Thoughts?
- Martin
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@lists.frrouting.org https://lists.frrouting.org/listinfo/dev
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@lists.frrouting.org https://lists.frrouting.org/listinfo/dev
One option is to have a branch (or set of branches) called "testing" which is heading towards the next stable. Once that branch has been declared fit, then branch it into stable/X.Y.Z. That way any "stable" branch was good. At that point, testing can either be destroyed or repurposed. On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Donald Sharp <sharpd@cumulusnetworks.com> wrote:
I see Martin's point. Does anyone else have a suggestion/thought?
donald
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 7:28 AM, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> wrote:
Fair enough.
Lou
On April 13, 2017 7:18:57 AM "Martin Winter" < mwinter@opensourcerouting.org> wrote:
On 12 Apr 2017, at 18:55, Lou Berger wrote:
Alternatively create a release/2.0 ...
This would still give the impression that stable/3.0 is a stable version…
I rather don’t have stable (or release) in a name until we have something stable.
- Martin
On April 12, 2017 9:13:02 PM "Martin Winter" <mwinter@opensourcerouting.org> wrote:
Curious on an opinion here…
Our branches on the github seem to be confusing to newcomers. Most people seem to assume stable/3.0 branch (or master) is the one they should be building from for a stable version.
I don’t see much we can do about the master (except maybe update the description to make it clear that this is the most cutting edge version).
But I would propose we rename stable/3.0 to dev/3.0 until we get to a more “stable” version of it.
I’m also thinking about having some auto-merge of commits from the 3.0 branch into master for the time being (at least for the non-conflicting commits) to keep master up to date.
Thoughts?
- Martin
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@lists.frrouting.org https://lists.frrouting.org/listinfo/dev
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@lists.frrouting.org https://lists.frrouting.org/listinfo/dev
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@lists.frrouting.org https://lists.frrouting.org/listinfo/dev
testing/3.0 or dev/3.0 is both ok to me (I have no preference). I assume most people think as testing more stable than development and less stable than stable. I suggest to make the final decision on this at the next technical meeting (next tuesday). - Martin On 13 Apr 2017, at 16:07, JR Rivers wrote:
One option is to have a branch (or set of branches) called "testing" which is heading towards the next stable. Once that branch has been declared fit, then branch it into stable/X.Y.Z. That way any "stable" branch was good. At that point, testing can either be destroyed or repurposed.
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Donald Sharp <sharpd@cumulusnetworks.com> wrote:
I see Martin's point. Does anyone else have a suggestion/thought?
donald
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 7:28 AM, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> wrote:
Fair enough.
Lou
On April 13, 2017 7:18:57 AM "Martin Winter" < mwinter@opensourcerouting.org> wrote:
On 12 Apr 2017, at 18:55, Lou Berger wrote:
Alternatively create a release/2.0 ...
This would still give the impression that stable/3.0 is a stable version…
I rather don’t have stable (or release) in a name until we have something stable.
- Martin
On April 12, 2017 9:13:02 PM "Martin Winter" <mwinter@opensourcerouting.org> wrote:
Curious on an opinion here…
Our branches on the github seem to be confusing to newcomers. Most people seem to assume stable/3.0 branch (or master) is the one they should be building from for a stable version.
I don’t see much we can do about the master (except maybe update the description to make it clear that this is the most cutting edge version).
But I would propose we rename stable/3.0 to dev/3.0 until we get to a more “stable” version of it.
I’m also thinking about having some auto-merge of commits from the 3.0 branch into master for the time being (at least for the non-conflicting commits) to keep master up to date.
Thoughts?
- Martin
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@lists.frrouting.org https://lists.frrouting.org/listinfo/dev
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@lists.frrouting.org https://lists.frrouting.org/listinfo/dev
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@lists.frrouting.org https://lists.frrouting.org/listinfo/dev
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@lists.frrouting.org https://lists.frrouting.org/listinfo/dev
participants (4)
-
Donald Sharp -
JR Rivers -
Lou Berger -
Martin Winter