geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Aaron Mulder" <ammul...@alumni.princeton.edu>
Subject Re: Where did the 1.1 branch go?!?!
Date Thu, 15 Jun 2006 20:37:32 GMT
I would still make the last step *copy* branches/1.1.0 to tags/1.1.0
when release is "final".  We can then either leave the 1.1.0 branch
there in case of emergency fixes that preempt 1.1.1 or we can delete
it once the release has hit the mirrors (at which time there's
presumably no chance of wanting to recut or add one more license file
or whatever).

But that's a small issue and generally, I'm in full agreement with
your proposal.

Thanks,
    Aaron

On 6/15/06, David Blevins <david.blevins@visi.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 15, 2006, at 12:22 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> > David Blevins wrote:
> >>
> >> On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:48 AM, David Blevins wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> David Jencks wrote:
> >>>>> -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.
> >>>> I would upgrade this to a -1 on my part.
> >>>
> >>> Think you're getting kind of nit-picky on what you think is
> >>> easiest for a release manager to do.  I'd rather see us simply
> >>> agree on what the end result should be.
> >>>
> >>> IMHO, if a release manager wants to copy into a temp location
> >>> while they finalize the release (which can take days) to remove
> >>> the risk of having to roll back accidental changes, that's fine.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Actually, now that i think about it there is one more reason other
> >> than preference that I like making a branches/1.1.0 for release
> >> finalization.
> >>
> >>  -- branches/1.1 will never have geronimo_version=1.1 and people
> >> (including continuum) won't have fake 1.1 final jars in their repos.
> > Why do we need geronimo_version=1.1 in branches/1.1.0?  Sorry, I'm
> > not following.
>
> Let me add the the item below and see if it doesn't make more sense.
>
> 1.    cp branches/1.1 to branches/1.1.0
> 2.    in branches/1.1.0
> 2.1   geronimo_version=1.1-SNAPSHOT -> geronimo_version=1.1
> 2.2   update plugin version numbers
> 2.3   update any hard coded poms or plans from 1.1-SNAPSHOT to 1.1
> 3.    in branches/1.1
> 3.1   geronimo_version=1.1-SNAPSHOT -> geronimo_version=1.1.1-SNAPSHOT
> 3.2   update plugin version numbers
> 3.3   update any hard coded poms or plans from 1.1-SNAPSHOT to 1.1.1-
> SNAPSHOT
> 4.    eventually move branches/1.1.0 to tags/1.1.0 when release is
> actually final
>
> Make more sense?
>
> -David
>
>
>
>
>
>

Mime
View raw message