Branch names inconsistent?

[GrahamCampbell]

No description provided.

[GrahamCampbell]

I think we should pull the v2.0.0-beta1 release too since we're missing all subsequent releases upto v2.0.0.

[djdefi]

@GrahamCampbell I can remove that one - Is it looking better now?

[GrahamCampbell]

2.0 should be named 2.0.0, right?

[GrahamCampbell]

Also, there's no 1.2.0 branch?

[GrahamCampbell]

Do we really need all these branches?

[GrahamCampbell]

Would 1.2, 2.0, master not be sufficient?

[djdefi]

I like that idea. ☝️ - Would be a lot less to maintain :)

[djdefi]

Now we have base for the base image, master for latest upstream master, 2.0.0 for tagging 2.x.x releases, and 1.2.1 for 1.2.1

[GrahamCampbell]

The branches should be called 1.2 and 2.0.

[GrahamCampbell]

2.0.0 can't be right, because it should have the 2.0.4 code on it?

[GrahamCampbell]

Meh, do we even need branches?

[GrahamCampbell]

What's wrong with just generating tags from the master branch?

[GrahamCampbell]

Meh, it's just very odd to have 2.0 as a branch, but it doesn't actually contain the 2.0.3 commit in it?

[GrahamCampbell]

Don't make anymore changes, lol.

[djdefi]

Fixed and fixed, 2.0.4 code is in 2.0 branch now.

The reason for the branches is:

Master: Pulls upstream master from cachet/cachet (Could be used by a developer potentially to work on upstream)
2.0: pulls 2.0.x releases (mainly to just tag them, if we had done this earlier the 2.0.3 commit would be there also...)

[GrahamCampbell]

2.0: pulls 2.0.x releases (mainly to just tag them, if we had done this earlier the 2.0.3 commit would be there also...)

Sure. Can we follow that method in future please?

[GrahamCampbell]

Also, the master needs rebasing against 2.0 doesn't it?

[GrahamCampbell]

There are no more planned 1.x or 2.0.x releases btw. The next release will be in the 2.1.x series.

[djdefi]

Definitely will follow this in future, will try to write up a CONTRIBUTING.md related to this flow.

Master shouldn't really need a rebase as there hasn't been any changes to the Dockerfile itself, other than changing the release # that it being downloaded. I will double check it though.

[GrahamCampbell]

The rebase was mainly for OCD to have it so it's directly applied ontop of 2.0.

[djdefi]

👍 will see if can fix that up