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: [discuss] branch and tag policy (and stable/unstable mixed in :)
Date Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:29:56 GMT
I can't argue with that! :)

Aaron

On 9/19/05, Dain Sundstrom <dain@iq80.com> wrote:
> 
> On Sep 19, 2005, at 12:05 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
> 
> > For my part, I don't understand why we don't keep branches alive
> > forever, or at least until we vote on discontinuing support for the
> > release the branch is tied to. We can vote to trash M4 in favor of
> > M5 if we like, but I don't think 24 hours and <5 votes is enough to
> > say the issues was decided.
> 
> This wasn't a vote. I consider this a trivial issue and the feedback
> I got reaffirmed it. More over, this is SVN is someone were to
> object, they can simply add the branch back.
> 
> > As for the confusion of branches and tags, Dain, can you clarify if
> > your confusion is caused strictly by this being a milestone
> > release? I mean, if this was the v3.2 branch, and we had a v3.2.0
> > tag while the 3.2 branch HEAD was used for development toward
> > 3.2.1, would that be confusing?
> 
> I found it confusing because it is a milestone. The scenario you lay
> out using real three part revision system makes perfect sense to me.
> In your scenario, we would have the following:
> 
> trunk (future v4_0)
> 
> branches/v3_0
> tags/v3_0_0
> tags/v3_0_1
> 
> branches/v3_1
> tags/v3_1_0
> 
> so we have the following progression in a three part
> major.minor.micro system:
> 
> trunk --> branches/v${major++}_0
> branches/v${major}_${minor} --> branches/v${major}_${minor++}
> branches/v${major}_${minor} --> tags/v${major}_${minor}_${micro++}
> 
> > I think that's the approach we have to take, and whacking the 3.2
> > branch as soon as 3.2.0 was released with the intention of
> > "resurrecting it" if we ever decided to work on 3.2.1, well, that
> > doesn't make any sense to me. But of course there is no M4.0 and
> > M4.1 so the whole issue is kind of muddy regarding milestones, and
> > I don't really care what we do to the M-series.
> 
> I completely agree with you. But I believe that using the process
> above we are at this point:
> 
> trunk == branches/v0_9
> tags/v1_0_m4 == tags/v0_9_4
> tags/v1_0_m5 == tags/v0_9_5
> 
> By this I mean that there won't be any further release off a
> milestone. It is effectively a tag on the "0.9" branch we are
> calling trunk.
> 
> 
> This is really all to confusing now... maybe we should move to
> numbers, and then it we will be crystal clear to everyone how this
> community will treat any release. If we decide to rename m5 to
> 0.9.5, it is clear we have no intention to maintain it. If we rename
> m5 to 0.5.0, it is clear to everyone that we intend on maintaining it.
> 
> -dain
>

Mime
View raw message