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 15:12:50 GMT
I agree...I think you have an SVN base number that you start  
from...you do the work in branches, make small tweaks, etc.  
(remember, we're trusting the the release manager and our friends :)

When you release Maven makes the move of the released branch to  
tags.  So the base SVN number is merely a starting point.

On Dec 22, 2006, at 4:14 AM, jason.dillon@gmail.com wrote:

> All of these impact the release, even if the code is not altered...  
> Which is why it is important to keep release artifacts in sync with  
> release codebases.
>
> And if you want to be sure to be able to reproduce a release you  
> need to have the rev.... Otherwise you might pick up new changes  
> made and not actually get the same result artifacts when building.
>
> --jason
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Hogstrom <matt@hogstrom.org>
> Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:09:37
> To:dev@geronimo.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [vote] Release geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.0
>
> 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
>
>

Matt Hogstrom
matt@hogstrom.org



Mime
View raw message