geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Where did the 1.1 branch go?!?!
Date Thu, 15 Jun 2006 17:26:10 GMT

On Jun 15, 2006, at 9:58 AM, Donald Woods wrote:

> I have to say, that Aaron's view of SVN usage (keeping branches/1.1  
> around for all 1.1.x releases) makes a lot more sense to me than  
> forcing people to switch to new branch names...
>
> We should have made a branches/1.1.0 copy from 1.1 , which could  
> then be moved to Tags once the voting is done.  If a major bug  
> needed fixing due to a -1, then you fix it in branches/1.1.0 and  
> branches/1.1, respin the 1.1.0 build, revote and then move it to  
> Tags.  That would let people continue working on branches/1.1 with  
> known items that should go into 1.1.1 and gives you a way to fix  
> any last minute 1.1.0 release bugs if needed....


Here are my opinions:
-1 on ever removing a branch that we have reasonable expectations of  
doing bug fixes on, such as 1.1.

My impression is that we have all agreed repeatedly over and over  
that branches such as 1.1 can get bug fixes but NO NEW FEATURES.
Therefore,
+1 to COPYING branches/1.1 to tags/1.1.x for each 1.1.x release, then  
building the 1.1.x stuff from that tag.

-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.

Unlike moving tags in cvs, deleting and recreating tags in svn does  
not lose any history.  Therefore I'm not very worried by Bill's  
concern about "changing" tags: my concern is that no one updates the  
contents, but deleting a tag and recreating it later isn't a problem  
to my sense of history :-).  However if we decide that deleting tags  
is not such a great idea perhaps we could use build numbers

tags/1.1.1-3 for the third attempt to come up with a 1.1.1 release.

thanks
david jencks

>
>
> -Donald
>
> David Blevins wrote:
>> On Jun 15, 2006, at 8:40 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>> Why not copied to tags/1.1.0 so that branches/1.1 would continue  
>>> to be
>>> available for 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT?  That would have the advantage of not
>>> disrupting anyone's work if there was code that wasn't checked in
>>> pending 1.1.1,
>> [edit]
>>> Are there any advanatages at all to
>>> moving the branch away?
>> Exactly that, to make sure people don't "move on" and checkin work  
>> on  branches/1.1 for 1.1.1 where there is a freeze on branches/1.1  
>> for  preparing v1.1 (which may not pass it's vote and have to be  
>> redone).
>> Probably should have created the 1.1.1 branch immediately, no   
>> biggie.  I went ahead and made now.
>>> plus it wouldn't require everyone to do a full checkout
>>> of the identical code for 1.1.1.
>> It doesn't require a full checkout.
>> svn switch https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/branches/1.1.1
>> -David


Mime
View raw message