geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Hiram Chirino" <hi...@hiramchirino.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 03:14:09 GMT
+1

On 6/21/06, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> +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
> >>
> >
>
>


-- 
Regards,
Hiram

Blog: http://hiramchirino.com

Mime
View raw message