You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@usergrid.apache.org by Todd Nine <to...@gmail.com> on 2015/09/16 19:19:22 UTC
Renaming of branches
Hey all,
Our 1.x development has slowed to patches only. Our 2.0 is under heavy
development and deployment. Rather than continue to keep 1.x on master, I
propose we rename "master" to "one-dot-oh", and rename "two-dot-o-dev" to
"master", future 2.x releases will come from the master branch.
I propose I make this change on 2015-09-23 @ 19:00 MST, and confirm on the
dev list when complete.
Thoughts?
Re: Renaming of branches
Posted by Todd Nine <Tn...@apigee.com>.
Correction to my last email, the change will be tomorrow.
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:13 AM Todd Nine <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey guys,
> Just a reminder that I'll be making this change tonight 2015-09-23 @
> 19:00 MST. I'll send out an email pre and post changes.
>
> Todd
>
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 at 16:21 Todd Nine <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm all for doing releases against 2.0. We're working out some of our
> > last operational kinks at Apigee for 2.0. I think after we've proven
> this
> > in production for a few weeks, we should probably cut a 2.0 release to
> the
> > public. The major barrier is we don't have a migration path from 1.0
> to
> > 2.0, short of just using a client to read from 1.0 and dump the data into
> > 2.0. I think we need a more elegant solution.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 at 14:33 John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> We seem to talk about this subject every couple of months. Yes, makes
> >> sense to do the switch and 1.x is a fine name.
> >>
> >> What about doing releases against 2.0?
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:54 PM Todd Nine <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Yeah, I agree it's more straightforward. Maybe "1.x"? We'll most
> >> likely
> >> > be maintaining that branch for a couple of more releases as we build
> >> > migration tools to 2.x.
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 at 11:21 Dave <sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Sounds good but why not call the branch "1.0" -- seems less
> >> confusing, at
> >> > > least to me.
> >> > >
> >> > > Dave
> >> > >
> >> > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 1:19 PM Todd Nine <to...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Hey all,
> >> > > > Our 1.x development has slowed to patches only. Our 2.0 is
> under
> >> > heavy
> >> > > > development and deployment. Rather than continue to keep 1.x on
> >> > master,
> >> > > I
> >> > > > propose we rename "master" to "one-dot-oh", and rename
> >> "two-dot-o-dev"
> >> > to
> >> > > > "master", future 2.x releases will come from the master branch.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I propose I make this change on 2015-09-23 @ 19:00 MST, and
> confirm
> >> on
> >> > > the
> >> > > > dev list when complete.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Thoughts?
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
Re: Renaming of branches
Posted by Todd Nine <to...@gmail.com>.
Hey guys,
Just a reminder that I'll be making this change tonight 2015-09-23 @
19:00 MST. I'll send out an email pre and post changes.
Todd
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 at 16:21 Todd Nine <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm all for doing releases against 2.0. We're working out some of our
> last operational kinks at Apigee for 2.0. I think after we've proven this
> in production for a few weeks, we should probably cut a 2.0 release to the
> public. The major barrier is we don't have a migration path from 1.0 to
> 2.0, short of just using a client to read from 1.0 and dump the data into
> 2.0. I think we need a more elegant solution.
>
>
>
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 at 14:33 John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> We seem to talk about this subject every couple of months. Yes, makes
>> sense to do the switch and 1.x is a fine name.
>>
>> What about doing releases against 2.0?
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:54 PM Todd Nine <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Yeah, I agree it's more straightforward. Maybe "1.x"? We'll most
>> likely
>> > be maintaining that branch for a couple of more releases as we build
>> > migration tools to 2.x.
>> >
>> > On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 at 11:21 Dave <sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Sounds good but why not call the branch "1.0" -- seems less
>> confusing, at
>> > > least to me.
>> > >
>> > > Dave
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 1:19 PM Todd Nine <to...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Hey all,
>> > > > Our 1.x development has slowed to patches only. Our 2.0 is under
>> > heavy
>> > > > development and deployment. Rather than continue to keep 1.x on
>> > master,
>> > > I
>> > > > propose we rename "master" to "one-dot-oh", and rename
>> "two-dot-o-dev"
>> > to
>> > > > "master", future 2.x releases will come from the master branch.
>> > > >
>> > > > I propose I make this change on 2015-09-23 @ 19:00 MST, and confirm
>> on
>> > > the
>> > > > dev list when complete.
>> > > >
>> > > > Thoughts?
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
Re: Renaming of branches
Posted by Todd Nine <to...@gmail.com>.
I'm all for doing releases against 2.0. We're working out some of our last
operational kinks at Apigee for 2.0. I think after we've proven this in
production for a few weeks, we should probably cut a 2.0 release to the
public. The major barrier is we don't have a migration path from 1.0 to
2.0, short of just using a client to read from 1.0 and dump the data into
2.0. I think we need a more elegant solution.
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 at 14:33 John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> We seem to talk about this subject every couple of months. Yes, makes
> sense to do the switch and 1.x is a fine name.
>
> What about doing releases against 2.0?
>
> John
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:54 PM Todd Nine <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, I agree it's more straightforward. Maybe "1.x"? We'll most
> likely
> > be maintaining that branch for a couple of more releases as we build
> > migration tools to 2.x.
> >
> > On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 at 11:21 Dave <sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Sounds good but why not call the branch "1.0" -- seems less confusing,
> at
> > > least to me.
> > >
> > > Dave
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 1:19 PM Todd Nine <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hey all,
> > > > Our 1.x development has slowed to patches only. Our 2.0 is under
> > heavy
> > > > development and deployment. Rather than continue to keep 1.x on
> > master,
> > > I
> > > > propose we rename "master" to "one-dot-oh", and rename
> "two-dot-o-dev"
> > to
> > > > "master", future 2.x releases will come from the master branch.
> > > >
> > > > I propose I make this change on 2015-09-23 @ 19:00 MST, and confirm
> on
> > > the
> > > > dev list when complete.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Renaming of branches
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
We seem to talk about this subject every couple of months. Yes, makes
sense to do the switch and 1.x is a fine name.
What about doing releases against 2.0?
John
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 3:54 PM Todd Nine <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, I agree it's more straightforward. Maybe "1.x"? We'll most likely
> be maintaining that branch for a couple of more releases as we build
> migration tools to 2.x.
>
> On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 at 11:21 Dave <sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sounds good but why not call the branch "1.0" -- seems less confusing, at
> > least to me.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 1:19 PM Todd Nine <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hey all,
> > > Our 1.x development has slowed to patches only. Our 2.0 is under
> heavy
> > > development and deployment. Rather than continue to keep 1.x on
> master,
> > I
> > > propose we rename "master" to "one-dot-oh", and rename "two-dot-o-dev"
> to
> > > "master", future 2.x releases will come from the master branch.
> > >
> > > I propose I make this change on 2015-09-23 @ 19:00 MST, and confirm on
> > the
> > > dev list when complete.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> >
>
Re: Renaming of branches
Posted by Todd Nine <to...@gmail.com>.
Yeah, I agree it's more straightforward. Maybe "1.x"? We'll most likely
be maintaining that branch for a couple of more releases as we build
migration tools to 2.x.
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 at 11:21 Dave <sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sounds good but why not call the branch "1.0" -- seems less confusing, at
> least to me.
>
> Dave
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 1:19 PM Todd Nine <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hey all,
> > Our 1.x development has slowed to patches only. Our 2.0 is under heavy
> > development and deployment. Rather than continue to keep 1.x on master,
> I
> > propose we rename "master" to "one-dot-oh", and rename "two-dot-o-dev" to
> > "master", future 2.x releases will come from the master branch.
> >
> > I propose I make this change on 2015-09-23 @ 19:00 MST, and confirm on
> the
> > dev list when complete.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
>
Re: Renaming of branches
Posted by Dave <sn...@gmail.com>.
Sounds good but why not call the branch "1.0" -- seems less confusing, at
least to me.
Dave
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 1:19 PM Todd Nine <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey all,
> Our 1.x development has slowed to patches only. Our 2.0 is under heavy
> development and deployment. Rather than continue to keep 1.x on master, I
> propose we rename "master" to "one-dot-oh", and rename "two-dot-o-dev" to
> "master", future 2.x releases will come from the master branch.
>
> I propose I make this change on 2015-09-23 @ 19:00 MST, and confirm on the
> dev list when complete.
>
> Thoughts?
>