Versions post 3.1.0 release ?

[Cantor, Scott]

On 3/11/15, 9:38 AM, "Rod Widdowson" <rdw at steadingsoftware.com> wrote:

>I'd +1 the idea of an early branch, but I think we should also give
>ourselves some guidance on what goes where.
>
>My assumption would be that the notional 3.1.1 branch would only ever be
>invoked if we had to suddenly turn around a patch release and so we would
>not be pushing fixes into both branches.  But that may not be other people's
>assumption.

I agree with the reasoning for the branch, but my take is that we would have to push fixes to both because otherwise the merge back to get fixes applied to the branch if we need to release it would be too hard. Once the trunk was tagged again, we'd close the branch of course.

I guess what it comes down to is that late branching to me only works if you're not adding features, otherwise you either have feature branches to avoid contaminating trunk, or you're maintaining two. If we did the feature branch approach, leaving aside the intellectual cost of keeping feature changes coherent when they don't share a branch, that would be a total change to everything we've set up.

Whereas early vs. late branching is just timing/effort. The POM strategy and versions are all defined as they are now.

-- Scott