Getting the jmc7 repo into the jmc repo as a branch.

[Mario Torre]

I think we discussed this already back in September or so, but I don’t
recall the decision...

Anyway, I think we need to branch off every release to give chance to add
release specific fixes. If you think they are too many we can have a
release branch and a dev branch like OpenJDK does (but then there’s a price
to pay to maintain both).

I’m still of the opinion that branches should have their personal
repository and not being in tree but I digress ;)

Cheers,
Mario

On Wednesday, October 14, 2020, Marcus Hirt <marcus.hirt at datadoghq.com>
wrote:

> Personally I'd go with branching for major development branches and tagging
> for releases. The name for the branch could be either just version, so e.g.
> "7" or "8", or jmc plus version, so e.g. "jmc7" or "jmc8". I'm perfectly
> fine with either, and have no strong feeling either way.
>
> Please let me know what you think.
>
> Kind regards,
> Marcus
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 3:50 PM Guru <guru.hb at oracle.com> wrote:
>
> > Option 1 : Not to pollute the branch name :
> > jmc8 (Branch for Major versions + tags for minor)
> >    jmc-8.0.0
> >    jmc-8.y.z
> >   ...
> >    jmc-8.z.z
> > jmc9 (Branch)
> >
> > Option 2 : Only Branch name, no tags
> > jmc-8.0.0
> > jmc-8.0.1
> > …
> > jmc-8.x.y
> >
> > Will wait for other’s opinion.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Guru
> > > On 14-Oct-2020, at 6:47 PM, Marcus Hirt <marcus.hirt at datadoghq.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Seems most people would rather have major release versions as branches
> > than
> > > separate repos. Now, what should the branches be called? Just the major
> > > version number? Or jmc followed by the major version number? Something
> > > entirely different?
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > > Marcus
> >
> >
>
>

-- 
Mario Torre
Associate Manager, Software Engineering
Red Hat GmbH <https://www.redhat.com><br>9704 A60C B4BE A8B8 0F30
9205 5D7E 4952 3F65 7898