Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
In-Reply-To: <6F21B01D-5D0D-4AAC-9813-F84ADFA35250@planet57.com>
References: <22d56c4d0612272024k25bf80fp4a79fa88ead61c62@mail.gmail.com>
 <A3D52CFC-1ECA-467B-B1D4-ADE465C84110@planet57.com>
 <22d56c4d0612272222x4aa4de59r2cdbf390ac970754@mail.gmail.com>
 <6F21B01D-5D0D-4AAC-9813-F84ADFA35250@planet57.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <B0E355DA-B718-45C1-AA54-15030798ADF7@iq80.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Dain Sundstrom <dain@iq80.com>
Subject: Re: purpose of branches\1.2
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:50:58 -0800
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org

Yep.  The branches\1.2 tree is being stabilized an Rick is finishing  
the Yoko integration.  Bug fixes are fine but I ask you to be extra  
careful since I hope to ship this as soon as the Yoko integration  
passes the TCK.

-dain

On Dec 27, 2006, at 10:32 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:

> Are there new features for 1.2 already?
>
> Since it takes a while for us to get releases out, its probably  
> best to minimize non-bugfix changes to the branch, though I suppose  
> if its a minor improvement that is should be fine, major feature  
> work should be avoided (preferring that for 2.0 actually).
>
> During this stabilization of 1.2 I would say that anything outside  
> of a bugfix should probably be presented to the list for direction  
> as to if it should go into 1.2, wait until 1.2 is out, or just in  
> 2.0.  And then lets just take it case by case.  I think its okay  
> for new bits to get added to a beta.  And hopefully soon when we  
> get to RCx then we will have a faster turn around to get a release  
> out.
>
> --jason
>
>
> On Dec 27, 2006, at 10:22 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
>
>> Hi Jason,
>>
>> Thank you for your clarification.  Since 1.2 beta is out, I was  
>> under the impression that we will be stabilizing the 1.2 branch  
>> and not put any new functions/improvements.  New functions/ 
>> improvements can still go into 1.x.  My confusion was whether to  
>> hold back commits to branches\1.2 unless it is a bug fix.  As for  
>> the bug fixes, they will go into all relevant branches.
>>
>> --vamsi
>>
>> On 12/28/06, Jason Dillon <jason@planet57.com> wrote: Um... its  
>> where code for the 1.2* line of Geronimo goes.
>>
>> I'd imagine that if a a fix for "1.x" is applicable for the 1.2 line
>> then it could be committed there, probably also to branches/1.1 too
>> if its a bug fix for both.
>>
>> Sure improvement fixes can still go into 1.2, and be marked for fix
>> in 1.2, since 1.2 is not yet out the door.  Once 1.2 is officially
>> out, then bugs/whatever for the 1.2 line will go into branches/1.2
>> and should be marked for fix in "1.2.1", etc.
>>
>> This seems kinda obvious to me... maybe I'm missing something in your
>> question?
>>
>> --jason
>>
>>
>> On Dec 27, 2006, at 8:24 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
>>
>> > What is the purpose of branches\1.2 as it stands now?  Can fixes
>> > targeted for "1.x" be committed to this branch?  If not, where
>> > should this ffixes go?  Can fixes for JIRAs marked as "Improvement"
>> > be still committed to branches\1.2 and designated as fixed in  
>> "1.2"?
>> >
>> > --vamsi
>>
>>
>