Intent to backport to 1.6: OAK-5641

[Julian Reschke <ju...@gmx.de>]

...change was already applied to 1.4, so we really ought to have it in 
1.6 as well.

Re: Intent to backport to 1.6: OAK-5641

[Julian Reschke <ju...@gmx.de>]

On 2017-05-05 17:16, Alex Parvulescu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm not sure what the latest is here, but isn't this regarded as bad
> practice?
> Maintenance branches have always been subsets of the subsequent branch: 1.0
> < 1.2 < 1.4 < 1.6 and so on? Any 1.6 release should contain *all* of 1.4
> (give or take a week or two until the next stable release).
> Has this changed in the meantime?

Yes. Optimally, we don't backport something from trunk to 1.x if it's 
not already in all 1.y for y > x.

Best regards, Julian

Re: Intent to backport to 1.6: OAK-5641

[Alex Parvulescu <al...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

I'm not sure what the latest is here, but isn't this regarded as bad
practice?
Maintenance branches have always been subsets of the subsequent branch: 1.0
< 1.2 < 1.4 < 1.6 and so on? Any 1.6 release should contain *all* of 1.4
(give or take a week or two until the next stable release).
Has this changed in the meantime?


alex






On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Julian Reschke <ju...@gmx.de>
wrote:

> ...change was already applied to 1.4, so we really ought to have it in 1.6
> as well.
>