geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Hogstrom <>
Subject Re: Release Guidlines (was: Re: svn commit: r488326 - /geronimo/server/tags/2.0-M1/testsuite/deployment-testsuite/manifestcp/manifestcp-ejb/src/main/resources/META-INF/ejb-jar.xml)
Date Tue, 19 Dec 2006 05:00:41 GMT

On Dec 18, 2006, at 10:37 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:

> For the M1 release I would have said close enough and made the  
> final release from trunk.
> But changing the tag is harmful by itself by setting precedence...  
> something which should not be followed, yet unless people  
> understand why, they will just continue along those bad practices.
> And technically speaking, making a change to a branch or hacking up  
> a tag should have the exact same effect on any work that anyone  
> might need to redo for a release.  And really we could thump the  
> rule book on the ci to tags too... which is pointless for this  
> release.  The important thing is that people understand that its  
> not appropriate to alter a "tag" in that manner.  This is a pure  
> policy argument, as technically from the release perspective is  
> identical using svn, in both cases, the release must be re-cut, re- 
> approved, blah, blah, blah.  And in general for release tags, it is  
> best to treat them as read only.

We're all on the same page...I weighed the change versus lost sleep  
and my marriage.  The commit won :)

> --jason
> On Dec 18, 2006, at 5:53 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>> On Dec 18, 2006, at 2:59 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>> Process of branching and tagging (we already have  a plethora of  
>>> discussion...I think this needs to get on a Wiki)
>>> - includes tags and modifications
>> Discussion, proposal, resolution and final vote.

Thanks David...this is what I was referring to and I don't think we  
need to go through it again.  I forgot it made it to the Wiki.

>> Granted that was June, just about time to do it all over again :)
>> In regards to the commit to the tag, I don't have a problem with  
>> it as it was completely ineffectual in any technical sense.  We  
>> could of course thump the rule book and make Matt redo 8+ hours of  
>> work and have days worth of revoting followed up by a couple weeks  
>> worth of cumulative man hours on policy discussions... or we could  
>> just say "close enough" and focus on 2.0-M2.
>> -David

Matt Hogstrom

View raw message