geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Hogstrom <>
Subject Re: Where did the 1.1 branch go?!?! - Summary and recommendation
Date Fri, 16 Jun 2006 04:40:03 GMT
Here is what I got from the thread and think makes a lot of sense.

Working copies of versions in branches would be branches/n.n.  This would be the effective
trunk for 
any version work.

When the team has decided that work is done and the release process begins the branches/n.n
would be 
*copied* to branches/n.n.0 and the release work would be completed there.

At the time of the copy two changes would occur:

1. In branches/n.n.0 the version number would be changed from n.n-SNAPSHOT to n.n.

2. In branches/n.n the version number would be changed to n.n.n-SNAPSHOT.  The plugin numbers
be increased.

The new branches/n.n would then allow people to work on the next set of changes (ostensibly
bug fixes).

The release manager would maintain responsibility for branches/n.n.0.

After the release is voted and approved the branches/n.n.0 would be moved to tags/n.n.0.

I would expect that it is totally acceptable to build the final release from branches/n.n.0
and not 
have to rebuild once its has been moved to tags/n.n.0 as tags/n.n.0 is branches/n.n.0 and
has simply 
been moved.

I think this is the summary of the discussion and based on having released Geronimo twice
this is 
way better than what we are doing now.

The remaining question is when a release is being completed off of trunk.  When this occurs
do we 
make a branches/n.n *AND* a branches/n.n.0 at the same time and apply versions n.n.n-SNAPSHOT
n.n respectively?

Not trying to be nitpicky but its going to happen and since we're on the subject we can close
loop here.

After people's comments we can take a vote if we think we need one and I'll update the release

management section in our wiki with this information so the next set of people on the project
have it at their disposal.

Aaron Mulder wrote:
> Now we only have a 1.0 branch and a dead-1.2 branch?  What's going on?
> Thanks,
>    Aaron

View raw message