geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Where did the 1.1 branch go?!?!
Date Thu, 15 Jun 2006 17:41:37 GMT

On Jun 15, 2006, at 10:26 AM, David Jencks wrote:

>
> On Jun 15, 2006, at 9:58 AM, Donald Woods wrote:
>
>> I have to say, that Aaron's view of SVN usage (keeping branches/ 
>> 1.1 around for all 1.1.x releases) makes a lot more sense to me  
>> than forcing people to switch to new branch names...
>>
>> We should have made a branches/1.1.0 copy from 1.1 , which could  
>> then be moved to Tags once the voting is done.  If a major bug  
>> needed fixing due to a -1, then you fix it in branches/1.1.0 and  
>> branches/1.1, respin the 1.1.0 build, revote and then move it to  
>> Tags.  That would let people continue working on branches/1.1 with  
>> known items that should go into 1.1.1 and gives you a way to fix  
>> any last minute 1.1.0 release bugs if needed....
>
>
> Here are my opinions:
> -1 on ever removing a branch that we have reasonable expectations  
> of doing bug fixes on, such as 1.1.
>
> My impression is that we have all agreed repeatedly over and over  
> that branches such as 1.1 can get bug fixes but NO NEW FEATURES.
> Therefore,
> +1 to COPYING branches/1.1 to tags/1.1.x for each 1.1.x release,  
> then building the 1.1.x stuff from that tag.
>
> -0.5 to copying branches/1.1 to branches/1.1.x and then copying or  
> moving to tags/1.1.x  Since ONLY BUG FIXES can possibly be added to  
> branches/1.1, this should not cause problems.  The release manager  
> gets say over what goes into a release, they can revert changes  
> they don't want in the release.  I think the copy to branches/1.1.x  
> just adds steps for no gain.
>
> Unlike moving tags in cvs, deleting and recreating tags in svn does  
> not lose any history.  Therefore I'm not very worried by Bill's  
> concern about "changing" tags: my concern is that no one updates  
> the contents, but deleting a tag and recreating it later isn't a  
> problem to my sense of history :-).  However if we decide that  
> deleting tags is not such a great idea perhaps we could use build  
> numbers
>
> tags/1.1.1-3 for the third attempt to come up with a 1.1.1 release.

I left one out...

-0.75 on bug-fixing on a sequence of branches/1.1.1, branches/ 
1.1.2, .... I don't get why this is a plausible idea.

thanks
david jencks

>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>>
>>
>> -Donald
>>
>> David Blevins wrote:
>>> On Jun 15, 2006, at 8:40 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>>> Why not copied to tags/1.1.0 so that branches/1.1 would continue  
>>>> to be
>>>> available for 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT?  That would have the advantage of not
>>>> disrupting anyone's work if there was code that wasn't checked in
>>>> pending 1.1.1,
>>> [edit]
>>>> Are there any advanatages at all to
>>>> moving the branch away?
>>> Exactly that, to make sure people don't "move on" and checkin  
>>> work on  branches/1.1 for 1.1.1 where there is a freeze on  
>>> branches/1.1 for  preparing v1.1 (which may not pass it's vote  
>>> and have to be redone).
>>> Probably should have created the 1.1.1 branch immediately, no   
>>> biggie.  I went ahead and made now.
>>>> plus it wouldn't require everyone to do a full checkout
>>>> of the identical code for 1.1.1.
>>> It doesn't require a full checkout.
>>> svn switch https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/branches/1.1.1
>>> -David
>


Mime
View raw message