geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Hogstrom <>
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 10:17:32 GMT
Thanks David,  I tried to recap in the other thread and didn't receive any additional responses
now that we have a branches/1.1.0 branches/1.1 and a branches/1.1.1 I don't think we quite
it.  Your summary is great and I concur.

Here is my + 1 and I'm happy to get the Wiki updated.

The remaining question is what to do with the branches that are out there.  I think we should
what's out there (does not appear that there has been any activity) branches/1.1 and branches/1.1.1.

  When the vote is complete later today and we release 1.1 I'll move branches/1.1.0 to tags/1.1.0

and then make the copy to branches/1.1 and update the versions to 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT as well as
plugin releases.

Then I think we're open for G-Business.

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/
>> * 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/ to tags/
>> 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

View raw message