commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Stephen Colebourne" <scolebou...@btopenworld.com>
Subject Re: [lang] release strategy
Date Sun, 13 Feb 2005 10:53:10 GMT
This is why I ([collections]) use ant for builds and maven only for website 
building.

Basically, IMHO, a src-zip should contain not only the source java, but the 
source for building a local copy of the website.

Stephen

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Henri Yandell" <flamefew@gmail.com>
> Pretty sure Maven doesn't put xdocs in the src zip. If we have to do
> this, then I think we shouldn't branch for a release, it's going to be
> too painful to keep the two sites synced.
>
> Starting to see negatives to the tying of site to code that Maven does :)
>
> Hen
>
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 01:51:52 -0000, Stephen Colebourne
> <scolebourne@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>> Er, no.
>> The xdocs should be shipped in the src zip file. They are used by people
>> outside Apache building a website.
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Henri Yandell" <flamefew@gmail.com>
>> > Cool. I'll remove the xdocs from the branch.
>> >
>> > Hen
>> >
>> > On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 21:39:33 -0000, Stephen Colebourne
>> > <scolebourne@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>> >> It needs to be like [collections], but probably not as automated
>> >>
>> >> Website is built from trunk.
>> >> Javadoc of 2.1 release is built from 2.1 branch and copied to server 
>> >> in
>> >> apidocs-2.1 directory
>> >> Hyperlink of 2.1 javadoc is inserted into navigation.xml of trunk
>> >>
>> >> Stephen
>> >>
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: "Henri Yandell" <flamefew@gmail.com>
>> >> > Though now I'm a bit confused about whether the website should exist
>> >> > on the 2.1 branch or not :)
>> >> >
>> >> > Odd as it sounds, I think we should we be releasing code from 2.1
>> >> > branch, and building the site from trunk.
>> >> >
>> >> > Otherwise it'll be a bit odd I think. Sound insane?
>> >> >
>> >> > Hen
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:22:08 -0500, Henri Yandell 
>> >> > <flamefew@gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> Only question is whether  to specify a 0 for the 0th maintenance.

>> >> >> Not
>> >> >> a big deal though, I've setup the following release branch:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jakarta/commons/proper/lang/branches/LANG_2_1_BRANCH
>> >> >>
>> >> >> the naming matches the syntax we used for 1.0 when making 1.0.1.
I
>> >> >> know it could be a lot better (especially as SVN doesn't barf on
. 
>> >> >> as
>> >> >> CVS does), but I'm going with consistency for the moment.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'll start tweaking that towards a release. Trunk is 2.2-dev now.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hen
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 18:36:13 -0500, Gary Gregory
>> >> >> <ggregory@seagullsoftware.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > Personally, I've always liked the following numbering scheme:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Major.Minor.Maintenance.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Gary
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > -----Original Message-----
>> >> >> > From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:scolebourne@btopenworld.com]
>> >> >> > Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 2:08 PM
>> >> >> > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
>> >> >> > Subject: Re: [lang] release strategy
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Personally I find the three digit release numbers just confusing.

>> >> >> > I
>> >> >> > much
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > prefer to reserve the third digit for essential patches.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So, I'm happy to have a 2.1-branch, but I want the release
to be
>> >> >> > 2.1,
>> >> >> > not
>> >> >> > 2.1.0 or 2.1.1.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Stephen
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ----- Original Message -----
>> >> >> > From: "Henri Yandell" <flamefew@gmail.com>
>> >> >> > > I'm very tempted to try the branch then release strategy,
and
>> >> >> > > wondered
>> >> >> > > what people thought about the idea. It might suggest
a slight
>> >> >> > > change
>> >> >> > > to the version number style:
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Create 2.1 branch.
>> >> >> > > Make changes to 2.1 branch until we're ready for release.
>> >> >> > > Tag 2.1 branch with 2.1.0 tag.
>> >> >> > > ... later
>> >> >> > > Change 2.1 branch until we're ready for release
>> >> >> > > Tag 2.1 branch with 2.1.1tag.
>> >> >> > > ... later in parallel
>> >> >> > > Change trunk until we're near a release
>> >> >> > > Create 2.2 branch (or 3.0)
>> >> >> > > Change 2.2 until ready
>> >> >> > > Tag 2.2 with 2.2.0
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > etc.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > If we called it 2.1-head or something, it wouldn't need
the
>> >> >> > > version
>> >> >> > > change, it just feels more logical to go with a 2.1.0
release 
>> >> >> > > than
>> >> >> > > a
>> >> >> > > 2.1 one if we use this style of development.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Anyway, it seems to me that this fits us more nowadays.
We end 
>> >> >> > > up
>> >> >> > > with
>> >> >> > > the text package slowing down because it's not planned
for the
>> >> >> > > next
>> >> >> > > release, and having to avoid various other bugzilla requests
as
>> >> >> > > they're not wanting to be fixed until later.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Any thoughts?
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Hen
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
>> >> >> > > commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>> >> >> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> >> >> > > commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
>> >> >> > commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>> >> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: 
>> >> >> > commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
>> >> >> > commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>> >> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: 
>> >> >> > commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message