[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: stable/2.12 and tagging of tarballs
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: stable/2.12 and tagging of tarballs |
Date: |
Tue, 9 Jun 2009 16:22:58 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 03:56:25PM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Wow, should have read those. I guess you can pretty much do what you
> want, however, a few things really strike me as odd or unwise
>
> DON'T TOUCH STABLE/2.12.
>
> why create a "stable/2.12" branch and then not use it and do subsequent
> 2.12.x releases from master?
Oops, I forgot the particular context there. The 2.12 release
caught almost everybody off guard, and in particular it pissed off
some of the translators. IIRC there were some really obvious
non-translated parts of the docs, which made them look like
idiots, even though they'd been working quite a lot on having the
important stuff translated.
So there I was saying "DON'T TOUCH STABLE" so that they could
finish their work, and/or we could fix a few critical bugs, before
releasing 2.12.1 (in some ways, the first "real" 2.12 release).
It was really meant as a "we're in deep freeze mode" comment. :)
Cheers,
- Graham
- Re: stable/2.12 and tagging of tarballs, (continued)
- Re: stable/2.12 and tagging of tarballs, Graham Percival, 2009/06/09
- Re: stable/2.12 and tagging of tarballs, Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2009/06/09
- Re: stable/2.12 and tagging of tarballs, Anthony W. Youngman, 2009/06/11
- Re: stable/2.12 and tagging of tarballs,
Graham Percival <=
- Re: stable/2.12 and tagging of tarballs, Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2009/06/10
Re: stable/2.12 and tagging of tarballs, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2009/06/09