geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Blevins <david.blev...@visi.com>
Subject Re: Where did the 1.1 branch go?!?!
Date Thu, 15 Jun 2006 17:01:45 GMT
On Jun 15, 2006, at 9:23 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:

> OK, so I see David Blevins has now created branches/1.1.1.  That still
> wasn't what I expected.  I expect branches/1.1 to be the 1.1.x HEAD at
> all times.  I don't expect us to continue to change it to
> branches/1.1.1 branches/1.1.2 branches/1.1.3 etc.

Preference i guess.

> That has the same
> disadvantages I originally noted, namely that if you have pending work
> in the branch that you decide not to check in until after a release
> then you're kind of screwed,

We aren't done with 1.1 yet, so we'd still be "screwed."  ;)

> and you have to re-check out the branch
> after every dot release, and so on.

Just posted the correct svn switch command on the other email.  There  
are no technical disadvantages.

> I'm thinking more like
>
> HEAD-----------------
>  `branches/1.1
>      `tags/1.1.0
>      `tags/1.1.1
>      `tags/1.1.2
>  `branches/1.2
>      `tags/1.2.0
>      `tags/1.2.1
>      `tags/1.2.2
>  `branches/1.3
>     ...
>  `branches/2.0
>      `tags/2.0.0
>      `tags/2.0.1
>      `tags/2.0.2
> ...

I've done exactly that in cvs land, it's not bad.

> Is that not what others are planning on?
>
> Does anyone mind if I move branches/1.1.1 back to branches/1.1?

The trick is we aren't done with 1.1.

-David

> Thanks,
>    Aaron
>
> On 6/15/06, David Blevins <david.blevins@visi.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 15, 2006, at 8:47 AM, Bill Stoddard wrote:
>>
>> > Jay D. McHugh wrote:
>> >> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>> >>> Now we only have a 1.0 branch and a dead-1.2 branch?  What's
>> >>> going on?
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>>    Aaron
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >> Aaron,
>> >> It was moved under tags/1.1.0.
>> >> Jay
>> >
>> > Comment from the peanut gallery...
>> > It is extremely poor form to modify 'tagged' releases. Once a
>> > release is tagged in SVN, it should not be changed, ever.
>> >
>> > Comment from the peanut gallery...
>> > It is extremely poor form to modify 'tagged' releases. Once a
>> > release is tagged in SVN, it should not be changed, ever.
>>
>> We don't update tags.
>>
>> > 1.1 should not have been tagged until after the vote to release 1.1
>> > passed. FWIW.
>>
>> It's been our tradition to insist the releases are built from the  
>> tag.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>>
>


Mime
View raw message