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 18:19:43 GMT
David Jencks wrote:
> 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.

I would upgrade to a -1 on my part.


View raw message