forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andre Anneck" <andre.ann...@spmtechnologies.com>
Subject AW: Release Process...
Date Tue, 09 Sep 2003 12:44:36 GMT
Cheche,

I agree... before code-freeze.. that is during normal (read unstable) development phases.
The point I was trying to make is that once code-freeze is announced, the main development
should stay on the MAIN branch and everything that needs a bit more "control" should go into
a new BRANCH (stable).

But... aehmm.. 4 active commiters.. .ok.. a bit too much overhead for 4 people. But on the
other side, now you would have the time to practice this release-process-methology while the
team is still small. Establishing the process now seems to be easier than later in time, when
there are more active commiters.

The actual work inside cvs is just
#1: cvs tag -b [Release_Tag_Name]
#2: send mail and announce code-freeze, publish tag-name for freezing-branch

Now everyone developing on forrest stays on the MAIN branch. (no change for most of the dev-team)
The one person in charge for the release, checks out the stable branch and controls the stabilization
effort.

I am not trying to advocate something you guys don't want or dont need.
And I totally agree that communication in a small team should work without big-processes.

Its up to you guys ;)

Take care,

André

_________________________________
Software Development

Andre Anneck 
Tel +49 30 55115-305
Fax +49 30 55115-143
andre.anneck@spmtechnologies.com

SPM Technologies Deutschland GmbH
An den Treptowers 1
12435 Berlin, Germany

www.spmtechnologies.com


> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Juan Jose Pablos [mailto:cheche@che-che.com]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 9. September 2003 14:18
> An: forrest-dev@xml.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Release Process...
> 
> 
> Andre,
> 
> You would have the same issue if just before Code-Freeze 
> someone added a 
>    controversial piece of code, on that case you will have to 
> decide if 
> you want to revert it or not.
> 
> With 4 commiter active this seems to be a bit over head, I 
> like the idea 
> of code freeze, we only need to have in mind when there is a 
> release and 
> concentrate on bug fixes rather than on new features.
> 
> Say that we want to release around every 8 weeks on the 7th 
> week we ask 
> ourselves to commit only bug fixes/ minor changes, that would 
> be enough.
> 
> Thanks for your 2 Euro cents.
> 
> Cheche
> 
> Andre Anneck wrote:
> > Hi dev-team,
> > 
> > in order to circumvent such conflicts I recommend using CVS 
> branches (early branching):
> > 1. Announce Code-Freeze
> > 2. Open branch RC_0-5
> > => Now people can continue work on MAIN, without 
> interference of the release branch
> > 3. Start tagging inside the branch to test release 
> candidates (Maybe Tag-Names == Jira Release-Names)
> > => Bugs fixed in release branch need merge into MAIN 
> branch, ok thats the overhead work you have using this approach
> > 4. Once satisfied with stability of RC_05, do the final TAG 
> and produce the release artifacts.
> > 
> > Just my 2EUR's ;),
> > 
> > Take care,
> > 
> > André
> > _________________________________
> > Software Development
> > 
> 
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message