1 |
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 12:55:38AM -0100, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: |
2 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
3 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
4 |
> |
5 |
> On 08-12-2011 18:46, William Hubbs wrote: |
6 |
> > On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 11:44:33PM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: |
7 |
> >> All, |
8 |
> >> |
9 |
> >> this has been mentioned in a couple of threads, so I want to |
10 |
> >> bring it up in a separate thread so that we can keep the |
11 |
> >> discussions organized. :-) |
12 |
> >> |
13 |
> >> As you know, catalyst has two branches in its git repository, |
14 |
> >> master, which was going to be catalyst 3.0, and a branch called |
15 |
> >> catalyst_2 which is the branch being used by releng for official |
16 |
> >> releases. |
17 |
> >> |
18 |
> >> We know from what Jorge said that the master branch is broken. |
19 |
> >> |
20 |
> >> Right now, we are commiting changes to both branches, but that is |
21 |
> >> not a good idea over the long term. We need to figure out if we |
22 |
> >> should keep master and try to release 3.0 from there at some |
23 |
> >> point. If that is what we want to do, we need to go through the |
24 |
> >> catalyst_2 branch and port relevant commits to master. |
25 |
> >> |
26 |
> >> If we are not interested in the 3.0 code, we should probably find |
27 |
> >> a way to revert all of it from master with one commit then rebase |
28 |
> >> the 2.0 branch on master and move it back there. |
29 |
> > |
30 |
> > If no one objects, I will look into doing this next week; the |
31 |
> > catalyst_2 code should move to master since there doesn't appear to |
32 |
> > be any work going on for releasing catalyst 3. |
33 |
> > |
34 |
> > Comments? |
35 |
> |
36 |
> William, |
37 |
> |
38 |
> I'd rather not lose the work for catalyst_3. I understand and agree we |
39 |
> use the catalyst_2 branch for our releases, so I'd rather move master |
40 |
> to a new branch, call it catalyst_3, experimental or something else, |
41 |
> and then make catalyst_2 as master. |
42 |
|
43 |
Hi Jorge, |
44 |
|
45 |
Ok, no problem, I'll go back to the #git channel tomorrow and |
46 |
investigate how to do that. |
47 |
|
48 |
I would prefer to do it without merge commits if possible, but that may |
49 |
mean a forced update. Are you ok with that? |
50 |
|
51 |
William |