geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Hogstrom <m...@hogstrom.org>
Subject Re: [vote] Release geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.0
Date Fri, 22 Dec 2006 05:09:37 GMT
I think the SVN number would be needed as many times there are minor  
tweaks...a base SVN number would provide a reference point and people  
could see any commits (legal files, release notes, etc.) that don't  
impact the code.

On Dec 21, 2006, at 11:55 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:

> I would imagine that a branch which is ready to be released would  
> be quiessed and so there would be no need for an svn rev # or am I  
> missing something?
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
> On Dec 21, 2006, at 3:19 PM, jason.dillon@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> IMO using a svn rev # for a release is a good idea, that with a  
>> tag ensures that code for that exact release can always be found  
>> at a later time.
>>
>> --jason
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Matt Hogstrom <matt@hogstrom.org>
>> Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 18:10:46
>> To:dev@geronimo.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [vote] Release geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.0
>>
>>
>> On Dec 21, 2006, at 4:06 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>>
>>> I think voting on svn source for small projects / jars is good,
>>> because people can build them locally, check that everything
>>> is ok (for legal reasons), and vote.  This is much more difficult
>>> for Geronimo server, of course, and may not be applied.
>>>
>>> This works well, I think, if the release process is just
>>>   mvn release:prepare release:perform
>>> which should be the case for all projects ideally.
>>> The benefit is that the jars will be deployed to their final
>>> destination
>>> as part of the relase, without having to tweak / corrupting maven
>>> repository metadata by copying from a staging repo.
>>>
>>
>> For my part, I'd prefer to follow this approach going forward.  I
>> agree with Guillaume that it may not totally work for Geronimo unless
>> we choose an SVN number as the release point so people can track
>> changes to a branch.
>>
>> Having been through the release process a few times I think that
>> using Maven to generate the artifacts is so much simpler and
>> automagically updating the repo is far easier as well.
>>
>> I'd like to propose (in a separate thread) that we adopt this process
>> going forward for specs.  If the vote succeeds then I think David
>> could follow it for these specs as a test case.
>>
>> Matt Hogstrom
>> matt@hogstrom.org
>>
>>
>
>

Matt Hogstrom
matt@hogstrom.org



Mime
View raw message