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 01:51:52 GMT
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


Mime
View raw message