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 14:22:25 GMT
On 6/22/06, Matt Hogstrom <matt@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> Thanks David,  I tried to recap in the other thread and didn't receive any additional
responses so
> now that we have a branches/1.1.0 branches/1.1 and a branches/1.1.1 I don't think we
quite nailed
> 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 whack
> 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 the
> plugin releases.

+1

>
> 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/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