On Fri, 18 May 2012, Yehuda Sadeh wrote: > On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, Yehuda Sadeh Weinraub wrote: > >> > Now, here are my actual questions: > >> > > >> > 1. What should the "relative" names of the branches be? "stable" vs > >> > "latest" etc. I especially don't like "integration", but I do see a > >> > time where it is not ready for "stable" but still needs to branch off > >> > of "latest". > >> > >> reallyold > >> old > >> current > >> next > >> latest/experimental > > > > I think we can limit the relative branches to: > > > > master = integration, unstable, tip, bleeding edge (same as now) > > [next] = next upcoming release (same as now) > > However, now a release means a dev cycle, which is different than > having a few iterations on a single release. So should 'next' be the > next release, or the next output of the current dev cycle? I think we can keep the current 'release each cycle' plan (which would make 'the next release' and 'the output of the current dev cycle' be the same thing). There are still people who will want the bloody (if not bleeding) edge of the last sprint output instead of a months-old stable release. And in general, next or current will pretty closely approximate a 'next' that means 'the next stable release'. > > current = most recent release > > stable = most recent stable release > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > >
