Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2)
In-Reply-To: <4401756D.4080304@hogstrom.org>
References: <43FA95C3.4010306@hogstrom.org> <43FAA09A.1020508@toolazydogs.com>
 <43FAAB3D.7070902@gmail.com> <43FE5793.7080009@hogstrom.org>
 <3F252A78-DEB9-4124-AD92-029B0F366B46@iq80.com>
 <4401756D.4080304@hogstrom.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <A66592A0-5DF4-4B2A-8361-972C1F69721E@iq80.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Dain Sundstrom <dain@iq80.com>
Subject: Re: Changing Trunk to 1.2 in anticipation of 1.0.1 becoming 1.1
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 09:31:51 -0800
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org

Trunk should now be completely changed to 1.2 in geronimo and 2.2 in  
openejb.  The configid branch should be 1.1 for G and 2.1 for openejb.

I still haven't merged the missing changes from branch 1.0 onto  
configid or renamed configid.

-dain

On Feb 26, 2006, at 1:31 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:

> Dain,
>
> Which part are you taking a crack at?   I've done some of the HEAD  
> work.  Should I abandon that ?
>
> Matt
>
> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>> Matt is traveling again, so I'm going to take a crack at this.
>> -dain
>> On Feb 23, 2006, at 4:47 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>> John,
>>>
>>> Life has been a travelling adventure lately so apologies for my   
>>> tardy response.
>>>
>>> My thinking is as follows in order of steps:
>>>
>>> 1. Convert HEAD to 1.2 SNAPSHOT.  This will be good as we need  
>>> to  get this story down to simply changing etc/project.properties  
>>> or at  least as close as possible.
>>>
>>> 2. Once HEAD is changed and building correctly hopefully Dain  
>>> and  David will have something to show.  I know they've been  
>>> bustin  their chops working on this.       We rename their  
>>> branches/ configid to branches/1.1.  We'd have to ensure that  
>>> changes made to  1.0 since they started get moved into their  
>>> branch and then we can  delete the 1.0 branch since we have the  
>>> 1.0.0.0 tag.
>>>
>>> 3. Apply the outstanding JIRA's I had previously identified.  We   
>>> need to figure out which ones are still important.
>>>
>>> I'd like to get the release out by the end of March.
>>>
>>> Is this clearer?
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>> John Sisson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/20/2006 8:23 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I was thinking that in order to expedite getting 1.1 our the   
>>>>>> door that it would make sense to move trunk to 1.2.  Then  
>>>>>> we'll  have to do the same in the 1.0 branch.  I'm going to  
>>>>>> start  working on that this week.  Comments, suggestions, ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So what is in trunk now?  What is in branches/1_0 now?  Where  
>>>>> is  the work for 1_1 taking place?
>>>>>
>>>> Matt,
>>>> Could you please confirm the following..
>>>> AFAIK, work for the 1.1 release (that was previously going to  
>>>> be  called the 1.0.1 release) should be done in the 1.0 branch  
>>>> (until  we branch for 1.1?).
>>>> Matt is proposing to change the version numbers in files in   
>>>> branches/1.0 to be 1.1.  I assume you plan on doing this before  
>>>> we  create the 1.1 branch?
>>>> Once the configId changes are merged in to branches/1.0 and we  
>>>> are  ready for a release we would create branches/1.1 from the  
>>>> 1.0 branch.
>>>> If we are creating a 1.1 branch then does that mean there would  
>>>> be  no further work happening in the 1.0 branch once the branch  
>>>> is made?
>>>> Work for the 1.2 release should be done in trunk.  I think Matt  
>>>> is  proposing to change the version numbers in files in trunk to  
>>>> be 1.2.
>>>> Are we releasing version 1.1 of all the specs for the 1.1 release?
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Alan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>