geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Dillon <>
Subject Re: Life After 1.1 - starting the new branch for 1.1.1 - some logistics and your input requested.
Date Wed, 21 Jun 2006 23:50:44 GMT
Why would a "branch" get moved to a "tag"?  Why do we need branches  
for revisions?  Why are we deleting branches?

IMO, we should have a branch for each Major.Minor, where all of the  
Major.Minor.Revision work happens.  So branches/1.1 would hold the  
active work for 1.1.x.  When it is time to make a release, then svn  
cp from branches/1.1 to tags/1.1.1, and then keep working on 1.1.2 on  

IMO, branches should never become tags.  Tags only get copied to new  
branches when we need to apply critical fix to a specific release,  
otherwise we should just roll up the change into the next release of  
the series.

I recommend minimizing branching where possible, so I don't think  
that branches for 1.1.1 or are a good idea.  SVN is not that  
good at merging, and making it simple (like Perforce), so lets try  
not to set ourselves up for icky merges by making branches for each  


On Jun 21, 2006, at 4:14 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:

> After the branches/1.1 was moved to tags there was some question as  
> to what happened to the 1.1 branch.  At that time some kind soul  
> created a new branches/1.1.1.  No activity has occurred in that  
> branch and given that we'll need to define the release goals of  
> 1.1.1 soon I'd like to propose the following.
> After 1.1 is released:
> * Delete branches/1.1.1
> * Move branches/1.1.0 to tags/1.1.0
> * Copy tags/1.1.0 to branches/1.1.1
> * Update branches 1.1.1 to be 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT
> * Start working on 1.1.1
> When 1.1.1 enters time for release
> * Move branches/1.1.1 to branches/
> * Change version from 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT to 1.1.1
> * Create release candidate rc1
> * put out for a vote
> * get a successful vote with no respins :)
> * move from branches/ to tags/
> Based on all the confusion in the past I think this procedure makes  
> it clear what phase were in for the release as well as avoids  
> tagging and branching repeatedly.
> I'm looking for lazy consensus and not a formal vote.
> Matt

View raw message