commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phil Steitz <p...@steitz.com>
Subject Re: [lang] release strategy
Date Sun, 13 Feb 2005 15:05:36 GMT
Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> 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.

I agree (that the xdoc should be included in the src distro).  This 
could be done using a maven preGoal:

<preGoal name="dist:build-src">
    <ant:copy todir="${maven.dist.src.assembly.dir}/xdocs">
       <ant:fileset dir="xdocs"/>
    </ant:copy>
</preGoal>

I don't see this as a big maintenance issue, but could be I am missing 
Hen's point below.

Phil

> 
> 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


Mime
View raw message