> <mailto:
henrik....@cloudsmith.com>> wrote:
>
> On 2014-04-12 22:24, Kylo Ginsberg wrote:
>
> * non-breaking changes should default to 3.7.x until some time
> passes after 4.0 is out
>
> Eh, no, not in general please. We have lots of code removal and
> anything that needs to go through the process of being
> implemented both an old and a new way should not be done at all on
> stable IMO except if there is burning need / bug.
>
> We have removed lots of code to save us work, remove complexity etc.
>
> I am fine with "non-breaking /bug fixes/ should default to 3.7.x
> until some time passes after 4.0 is out".
>
>
> Ah yes, I agree. I was thinking "bug fixes" specifically (but the
> wrong words came out).
>
> Maybe the criteria are more like "non-breaking bug fixes, not in
> support of any deprecated features, and trivially merged up to 4.x" or
> some such.
>
>
> There is no need to rename branches.
>
>
> I *think* we'd still need an additional branch if we want to support
> any level of changes to 3.7.x after 4.0 is released b/c we'd have:
> * branch for 3.7.x
> * branch for 4.0.x
> * branch for 4.1/5.0
> which could be named 3.7.x/stable/master respectively (although we
> should discuss Josh H's comment too). Or am I missing your point here?
>
master for 4.x, so we do need a 3.7.x branch. The workflow will be