Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4491CEC9.7020407@toolazydogs.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 14:19:05 -0700
From: "Alan D. Cabrera" <list@toolazydogs.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Macintosh/20060530)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Where did the 1.1 branch go?!?!
References: <74e15baa0606150827j6196a402we1da1711e48f6dee@mail.gmail.com>
 <44917EB1.9010604@joyfulnoisewebdesign.com>
 <74e15baa0606150840m7e9ccd67u80973c36c9729a51@mail.gmail.com>
 <82686663-C980-4781-B0A4-54F94874672F@visi.com> <449191B3.2090307@yahoo.com>
 <C0D039EA-7BD3-4CDF-BAA2-DA89734D154D@yahoo.com>
 <4491A492.80000@toolazydogs.com>
 <FF061E0F-D638-4A5B-A512-98A232BB641C@visi.com>
 <4491AD28.7050600@toolazydogs.com>
 <1361D50A-C8B4-40BB-9173-BA612BD2D733@visi.com>
In-Reply-To: <1361D50A-C8B4-40BB-9173-BA612BD2D733@visi.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

David Blevins wrote:
>
> On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:55 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>> While I agree with your statements, I think that the point that DJ 
>> and I were trying to make was that there is no need for a 
>> branches/1.1.x branch as a temp location if no one is modifying 
>> branches/1.1.  This is the case if we only put bug fixes into 1.x 
>> branches.
>>
>
> Then you both missed the beginning of this thread where Aaron was 
> saying "i want to update branches/1.1 with a fix for 1.1.1, where did 
> it go?"  The issue is, we haven't released 1.1 yet and no one should 
> be updating that source till then.
>
> Hence the idea to copy 1.1 aside as 1.1.0 so the activities of 
> creating, voting, and shipping 1.1 (which take about a week) could 
> happen in parallel to bug fixing 1.1.1. 

That sounds really dangerous to me.

We're adding fixes to a release that hasn't gone out yet?


Regards,
Alan