geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>
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 03:37:56 GMT
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.

--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.
>
> http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/release-branching-process.html
>
> 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
>
>


Mime
View raw message