<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Rod Widdowson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rdw@steadingsoftware.com" target="_blank">rdw@steadingsoftware.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">It looks like 3.2 is weeks away, are we really saying that if we have to do<br>
a 3.1.1 release we'll be saying "here is a security release, it also<br>
contains a whole bunch of bug fixes that you may or may not want"? If not<br>
what will we be saying? That should provide guidance as what sort of bug<br>
fixes we would put in.<br>
<br>
I'm not saying that this doing any of this is a necessarily bad idea, I'm<br>
saying that we (I really) need to understand upfront what the expected<br>
behaviors will be.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I lean towards a pragmatic approach as well. I would only create a 3.1.x branch if your trunk version had moved on to 3.2.0 and you needed a patch release before you could cut the 3.2.0 release.</div><div><br></div><div>My impression is the branch early model worked well for large groups with lots of external patches. But there may be benefits I'm not thinking of.</div><div><br></div><div>--Daniel Fisher</div><div><br></div></div></div></div>