geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bill Stoddard <>
Subject Re: Stable/Unstable/Sandbox
Date Tue, 31 May 2005 17:37:19 GMT
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> Can we agree that we need to somehow construct the stable, unstable  and 
> sandbox codebases?
> If so, can we move on to how?
> geir

Check out the httpd project:

essential features:
'trunk' is 'development' (unstable) reporitory. It is constantly moving forward under loose
rules for what can 
be committed.

'branches' contains the 'stable' code. httpd 2.0.x (and 1.3.x) constantly move forward but
under a 
'review-then-commit' policy. All code that goes into the stable branch must be reviewed and
voted on before it 
can come into the stable branch.

'tags' contains all the tagged releases

So using this model, one of the geronimo branches could be 1.0.x. When 1.0 is 'done', tag
the release and 
continue on the next 'stable' drop, migrating function out of trunk and into 1.x using whatever
process you 
like (RTC, CTR, votes, whatever). The RTC + vote policy httpd 2.0.x uses may be too restrictive
for geronimo 
1.0.x, so do whatever makes sense for this project.

There will come a day when you want another stable branch of geronimo (presumably forked from
trunk). When 
that day comes, just create a new tree under 'branches', named differently (maybe 2.0.x or
1.2.x, whatever).

I know this doesn't really answer the more interesting question about how to structure the
repository to 
support assemblying components into a 'custom' install.


View raw message