commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <flame...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [lang] release strategy
Date Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:39:22 GMT
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


Mime
View raw message