geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alan D. Cabrera" <l...@toolazydogs.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release branching process (was Re: Life After 1.1 - starting the new branch for 1.1.1 - some logistics and your input requested.)
Date Thu, 22 Jun 2006 02:06:18 GMT
+1

I think that we should mention that patches that go into

x.y.z also go into x.y and trunk
x.y also go into trunk

Last time we neglected to apply patches evenly across the board when 
fixes were checked into one branch.  This is one reason why the versions 
drifted so wildly apart.

Regards,
Alan

David Blevins wrote:
> We had this whole conversation last week, lots of good discussion was
> had.  I'd prefer not to have to have it again.  Here is my exact
> understanding of our consensus and would like to put it to a vote to
> avoid reinterpretation of that consensus in the future.
>
> 1.   branches/x.y would be the branch for all x.y.z releases
>
> 2.   when a release is frozen, we spin off a branch with that *exact*
>      name, as in branches/x.y.z, where z starts at zero and increments
>      by one.
>
> 3.   at that time branches/x.y is immediately updated to version
>      x.y.(z+1)-SNAPSHOT
>
> 3.   We cut releases from the frozen branch
>
> 4.   When a release passes final tck testing and final vote, the
>      frozen branch is moved to tags
>
> We create a branch at freeze time for the following reasons:
>
> 1.  it takes *at least* one week from freeze to ship due to voting,
>     tck testing and potential repeats of that process (re-cut,
>     re-certify, re-vote).  There is no reason why work on x.y.z+1
>     needs to be delayed -- only 52 weeks a year.
>
> 2.  stronger guarantee no one is updating the branch once frozen
>
> 3.  less likely that people and ci systems (continuum) will checkout
>     and build pre-release versions of x.y.z (not x.y.z-SNAPSHOT) which
>     would need to be removed manually and may accidentally be
>     distributed.
>
> 4.  it is currently very difficult to roll version numbers forward,
>     entries here and there are often missed.  Far better to have
>     branches/x.y have a few straggling old x.y.z-SNAPSHOT versions
>     than a few overlooked x.y.z final numbers that needed to go back
>     to SNAPSHOT -- they never leave SNAPSHOT and need to be reverted
>     back later if that process happens in the frozen branch.
>
>
> Here is my +1
>
>
> -- David
>
>
>
> 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/1.1.1.0
>> * 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/1.1.1.0 to tags/1.1.1.0
>>
>> 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
>>
>


Mime
View raw message