-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 327
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
v3.5.0 release plan #966
Comments
FYI CommonMark 0.30 got released a few minutes ago, with mainly clarifications, and subtle changes to boundary conditions. I think it will not affect our plan for now. |
I was wondering whether we should plan a patch release v3.4.1 (given that I won't have enough time in the next two months). We can create a new branch and cherry-pick some of the fixes that are not entangled with the architecture changes. |
That will be super helpful. Don't hurry and please take your time. |
Only two appear troublesome.
How do you like the plan? |
Looks good to me 👍 as long as we are not introducing breaking changes (in a patch release). |
I'll comment here when finishing my part. |
@Lemmingh I have created a Apparently now there is no easy way to merge the two branches ( Or you may have some better ideas? |
Tag and keep it forever. It's a common pattern in large projects to create a branch for each I guess we didn't have such practice because we deprecate old releases as soon as a new version comes out. It sounds not a conflict to me to make release-branches occasionally and have a forward-only life cycle policy meanwhile. |
Makes sense. Then I am going to simply cherry-pick the "version number and changelog commit" into the |
Not sure if I understand you. Do you refer to |
Yes (and also the |
I guess we can bump the It sounds strange to have a version number that actually doesn't reflect the content. I thought about:
|
These work items are blocking the release.
Must resolve
Can defer
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: