geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alan D. Cabrera" <>
Subject Re: Where did the 1.1 branch go?!?!
Date Thu, 15 Jun 2006 18:18:58 GMT
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.
I would upgrade this to a -1 on my part.
> 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 feel the same way here.

We don't need to have tags/1.1.1-3 since the history can always be 


View raw message