From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from starfish.geekisp.com ([216.168.135.166]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PJUsd-0003Y0-Ed for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 18:36:14 +0100 Received: (qmail 6834 invoked by uid 1003); 19 Nov 2010 17:34:50 -0000 Received: from adsl-75-37-22-143.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net (HELO ?192.168.1.148?) (philip@opensdr.com@75.37.22.143) by mail.geekisp.com with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 19 Nov 2010 17:34:50 -0000 Message-ID: <4CE6B538.6050801@balister.org> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 09:34:48 -0800 From: Philip Balister User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Fedora/3.1.6-1.fc13 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org References: <4CE67FA1.6020901@mentor.com> <20101119144425.GC3411@jama> In-Reply-To: <20101119144425.GC3411@jama> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 216.168.135.166 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: philip@balister.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on discovery X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:20:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on linuxtogo.org) Subject: Re: release-2010.12 branch ready for testing X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 17:36:14 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 11/19/2010 06:44 AM, Martin Jansa wrote: .... > I think that short-lived branch is better, because every testing branch > had few easy-to-fix issues which were fixed almost immediately in .dev > after testing branched and it would be hard to choose which branch was best. > > But tag from any testing branch + first few quick fixes would be almost as > good as based on any other testing branch. > > And I also agree with Phil that this short lived branch should be > removed when the tag is created (to show that it's final state without > maintainance). I also think a *short lived* branch is a good route to try. I've been thinking about how the git history looks of a tag after you delete the branch leading up to it. For emphasis, the short lived branch will not be used to maintain the tag. Philip