Re: RFC: time for a new mingwrt/w32api release?

On 5/18/2016 10:51 AM, Keith Marshall wrote:
> On 16/05/16 16:14, Keith Marshall wrote:
>>> On the other hand, there is a good chance that the number of 
>>> affected people, actively tracking the "5.0-dev" branch, is 
>>> actually zero.
> 
>> That's a metric I hope we might be able to establish, at least as
>> it relates to participants on this list.  I'd like to think that it
>> *is* zero, since there seems to be no actual head branching from
>> that label; it appears to be no more than a place holder,
>> currently referring to the same location as 4.0-rc1, (which begs
>> the question: why was it designated as 5.0-dev in the first
>> place?)
> 
> Given that the branch point was named, but no actual branch was ever
> created, is there any *real* justification for keeping that original
> (virtual) branch ... especially since the 4.0-rc1 tag marks the self
> same point?  I'm thinking we might just as well delete this spurious
> branch, without bothering to
> 
>> 1) Rename the existing "5.0-dev" branch as "5.0-deferred".
> 
> since there's no deferred development sitting on that branch anyway.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 

Go ahead and remove it.  If someone needs it they can always recreate
it.  As you know I'm not currently developing on it anyway.

-- 
Earnie

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j