geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Mulder <ammul...@alumni.princeton.edu>
Subject Re: [CONSENSUS?] Preparation for M4 -- branch early
Date Tue, 05 Jul 2005 02:57:45 GMT
	I want to get the key generator changes in for M4.  However, I'm
currently blocked because I can't add the new module to TranQL.  So I'd
like to resolve that before the branch.  Other than that, I'm fine to go
ahead with the 24 hour notice.

	Oh, I think we also have a problem where the currently running 
module list never gets saved.  So you always get the default services when 
you start the server.  I think I remember a conversation about how it 
was caused by some bad logic around our shutdown hooks.  That needs to be 
resolved too.

Aaron

On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, David Blevins wrote:
> Do we have a consensus that we should branch at the beginning of the release cycle instead
of at the end as we have done in the past?
> 
> If so, going to put out an email titled "M4 - 24 hour notice of branch", which I think
would be a good release practice.
> 
> -David
> 
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 07:15:34PM -0700, David Blevins wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 06:38:23PM -0700, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> > > David Blevins wrote:
> > > >On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 05:22:36PM -0700, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>David Blevins wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>Anything I missed?
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>SNAPSHOT elimination so the build is reproducible.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Right.  Missed that one for M3 IIRC.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>Branch so that M4 can stabilize whilst other changes are being made.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >We do for every milestone.  Don't expect this to be different.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>Acceptance test process - how do we know what works (need to avoid
a 
> > > >>broken release like M3).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >That's what I meant by:
> > > >
> > > >  DB> We have a number of people interested in testing.  I'll ping
> > > >  DB> them when I have something ready.
> > > >
> > > >Was thinking to branch when I dish out the binaries for testing.
> > > >Rather than the "surprise, here is a binary" approach we've done in
> > > >the past.  Sounds pretty much like what you are proposing as well.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > Yes - in the past we've just tagged and moved on. This time I think we 
> > > should create the branch at the start of the process rather than at the 
> > > end as there seem to be a lot of pent up changes planned. Yes, we may 
> > > need to merge some critical changes back to this branch but hopefully 
> > > this can be kept to a minimum.
> > > 
> > > So basically,
> > > * create a branch now, say 1.0-M4-prep
> > > * do the stuff we talking about now on that branch
> > > * cut the final M4 distro
> > > * drop the 1.0-M4-prep branch
> > > 
> > > Other work can continue on the trunk without destablizing the M4 release.
> > > 
> > 
> > +1 That's pretty much what I had in mind.
> > 
> > 
> > -David
> 

Mime
View raw message