geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Blevins <david.blev...@visi.com>
Subject Re: Module restructure
Date Fri, 27 May 2005 23:24:15 GMT
On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 06:33:49PM -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> 
> On May 27, 2005, at 4:25 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> 
> >Yea, I was just about to post that.  Stable/unstable refers to  
> >branches.
> >
> 
> But jeremy is right here (but forgot to say it) - because we're using  
> SVN, you want to keep the branches in a separate root so that
> 
>   svn co geronimo
> 
> doesn't bring down every branch, but just gets you the current head.
> 
> As long as we're in the same SVN repo, the fact that we have  
> different roots is irrelevant from the POV of making copies (aka  
> "branching"), but it's a big help for users.

Yea, I get that.  But I think Jeremy is proposing more of this:

 ../repos/asf/geronimo/transaction/unstable
 ../repos/asf/geronimo/transaction/stable

than this:

 ../repos/asf/geronimo/unstable/modules/transaction
 ../repos/asf/geronimo/stable/modules/transaction

Jeremy?

-David


> 
> geir
> 
> >-David
> >
> >On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 12:18:03PM -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> >
> >>Clearly, we need something like this to get organized around the
> >>final push for certification and the 1.0 release, by why not just
> >>branch for the stable, and head is unstable?
> >>
> >>geir
> >>
> >>On May 27, 2005, at 12:07 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Stefan brings up the question of whether we want to release sub-
> >>>modules of Geronimo separately. I think this is a good idea and
> >>>would propose the following restructure of the tree to move in this
> >>>direction.
> >>>
> >>>Rather than "trunk" in the root, we have three separate trees:
> >>>
> >>>stable    similar to even-numbered versions of Linux, this tree
> >>>         would contain stable code intended for production use
> >>>         and operates with a focus on stability (i.e. well
> >>>         documented stable APIs, backward compatibility, no
> >>>         SNAPSHOT dependencies etc.)
> >>>         There will be multiple branches as needed.
> >>>
> >>>unstable  similar to odd-numbered versions this is where new
> >>>         development is done and APIs etc. are much more
> >>>         likely to change. We may still do releases from here
> >>>         but they are quite likely to be incompatible; it may
> >>>         be all we package from here are nightlies.
> >>>
> >>>sandbox   as now, a free-for-all area for trying out new ideas
> >>>         and experimenting with new technologies
> >>>
> >>>Given the size of the codebase, we need to preserve the module
> >>>structure that we have in the current trunk. However, even now some
> >>>modules are more stable than others (e.g. the transaction and
> >>>connector ones Thierry is looking to use) and I think are in a
> >>>position where they can be versioned separately.
> >>>
> >>>With the structure above in place, we can move modules into the
> >>>stable or unstable trees as appropriate. For those that we consider
> >>>stable (e.g. transaction) we can cut numbered releases that people
> >>>can use standalone.
> >>>
> >>>This will also speed the unstable build as we won't need to check
> >>>SNAPSHOTs for everything all the time.
> >>>
> >>>I would suggest we start on this as part of packaging for M4 and
> >>>would be willing to co-ordinate.
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>Jeremy
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>-- 
> >>Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
> >>geirm@apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> -- 
> Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
> geirm@apache.org
> 

Mime
View raw message