geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Stable/Unstable/Sandbox
Date Tue, 31 May 2005 19:57:58 GMT

On May 31, 2005, at 1:37 PM, Bill Stoddard wrote:

> 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:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/
>
> 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
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/
>
> 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.

I'm not sure that's important here - we should be able to assemble  
any custom install from parts wherever they are - we can have  
assemblies in both stable an unstable...  The key is that the code in  
stable remain so.

I'm not sure I'm a fan of going to the full degree of "review-then- 
commit" right now (but probably in the future when we run 70% of the  
worlds J2EE app server installations ;)  but now a "propose then  
commit" for stable branch might be nice.

geir

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org



Mime
View raw message