On May 12, 2008, at 8:05 PM, Joe Bohn wrote: > David Jencks wrote: >> On May 12, 2008, at 11:54 AM, Joe Bohn wrote: >>> Joe Bohn wrote: >>>> David Jencks wrote: >>>>> I may not be understanding the issues here..... if so please >>>>> point this out. >>>>> >>>>> On May 12, 2008, at 9:00 AM, Joe Bohn wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The new release process [1] generally assumes that we are >>>>>> releasing from trunk and always bumps the version number up by >>>>>> one. >>>>> >>>>> Those are not intended to be assumptions :-) Maybe bad writing. >>>> Ah ... ok. The wiki mentioned that we should avoid the >>>> complexity of releasing from branches in favor of releasing from >>>> trunk. I took this too literally. IIUC the intent is that we >>>> should not be creating a temporary branch just to later convert >>>> it to a tag for a release. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> However, for things like samples we want to keep version >>>>>> numbers consistent with the Geronimo Server versions and as >>>>>> such we would need to release from branches. So here are some >>>>>> questions: >>>>>> >>>>>> #1 Can we follow the new release process from a branch >>>>>> (geronimo/samples/branches/2.1) rather than trunk? I think >>>>>> this should work. Anybody know of any issues? >>>>> >>>>> I'm pretty sure this should work fine, I did something very >>>>> similar with activemq 4.1.2 >>>> Ok, I'll give that a shot. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> #2 Releasing from branches/2.1 would result in the versions in >>>>>> the branch being updated to 2.2-SNAPSHOT and a tag/2.1 release >>>>>> (I think). However, we want the branch to live on as a 2.1.* >>>>>> branch ... so I assume that I could just manually update the >>>>>> versions to 2.1.1-SNAPSHOT from 2.2-SNAPSHOT. Likewise, I >>>>>> would rename the tag from tags/2.1 to tags/2.1.0. Does anybody >>>>>> see a problem with this (see #3 for another idea)? After the >>>>>> initial jump from the 2 digit version to the 3 digit version >>>>>> things should work normally for future releases. >>>>> >>>>> I like what activemq does more and more. With numbers >>>>> transposed to match our versions, they keep the branch in >>>>> branches/2.1, the branch version at 2.1-SNAPSHOT, and release >>>>> 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, ... from this branch. You just need to >>>>> fill in the 2.1.x release version and 2.1-SNAPSHOT branch >>>>> version when you run mvn release:prepare. Even if we dont keep >>>>> the version at 2.1-SNAPSHOT but update it to 2.1.(x+1)-SNAPSHOT >>>>> I think the branch name in svn should continue to be branches/2.1 >>>> This is the same process that we followed with 2.1. I'll dig >>>> into the details of specifying the releases rather than allowing >>>> the defaults that bump up the version number of the release by 1. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> #3 The previous question makes me wonder if we should be >>>>>> following consistent 2 or 3 digit version numbers for projects >>>>>> which should eliminate the need for the renames. Should >>>>>> Geronimo 2.1 (and hence Geronimo Samples for 2.1) have been >>>>>> versioned 2.1.0 rather than 2.1. It seems that is the version >>>>>> number we adopted for the server tag which is called tags/ >>>>>> 2.1.0. It would make it possible to use the maven-release >>>>>> plugin for major versions as well as minor versions. The >>>>>> branch would still be branches/2.1 but the version for the poms >>>>>> would be 2.1.x-SNAPSHOT as we currently do for server branches/ >>>>>> 2.1. Thoughts? If we adopted this strategy we would also want >>>>>> to revision server trunk from 2.2-SNAPSHOT to 2.2.0-SNAPSHOT. >>>>> >>>>> I think anything we do that isn't from the release plugin should >>>>> be ignored as guidance. I think the release plugin creates tags >>>>> like - under tags. This is fine >>>>> IMNSHO. >>> >>> Actually, I did think of one addition concern with our current >>> numbering and using the maven release plugin. If we only use 2 >>> digit version numbers for major releases then we would end up with >>> tags/2.2 and branches/2.2. This may be a point of confusion when >>> looking at our svn repos (and I suspect the reason that we have >>> tags/2.1.0 rather than tags/2.1 right now). NOTE: I have not yet >>> looked into the how the version is specified with the maven- >>> release-plugin. Perhaps we can specify the release version and >>> the tag version independently in which case I could name the >>> appropriately via the plugin. >>> >> Wouldn't we end up with server/branches/2.2 and server/tags/ >> geronimo-parent-2.2? These seem sufficiently distinct to me to >> avoid confusion. > > hmmm .... now I'm confused. What is server/tags/geronimo-parent and > why would it replace server/tags/2.2? The release plugin generates tags named like -. I might have the geronimo-parent name wrong. > > > Actually, since this is really a discussion about samples, how would > we not end up with samples/branches/2.1 and samples/tags/2.1 (where > the branches continually used for 2.1.x releases and tags is the 2.1 > release) if there is not a way to specify the artifact release > version independently from the tag release version? What am I > missing? > > I suspect the naming issue is why we named the tag sever/tags/2.1.0 > when we released Geronimo 2.1 so that the tag would have a different > version number from the branch that was to continue, server/branches/ > 2.1. I suspect that it was due to the process used instead of the release plugin, which IIUC involved making a release branch and then moving it to tags. Such a branch needs a different name than what it is copied from. If we were to use the release plugin this would be unnecessary. thanks david jencks > > > Joe > > > >> thanks >> david jencks >>> >>>> I wasn't proposing anything that wasn't included in the release >>>> plugin with #3 (I was actually proposing that with #2 ... but >>>> specifying the releases should eliminate the need for that). The >>>> only advantage to doing 3 digit versions consistently would be >>>> that we could use the defaults from the release plugin rather >>>> than having to specify the versions. >>>>> >>>>> At the moment I'd prefer that our releases be numbered 2.2, >>>>> 2.2.1, 2.2.2,... rather than 2.2.0, 2.2.1, ... I don't >>>>> understand what renames you are proposing or why they would be >>>>> needed. >>>>> >>>>> I wonder if we could remove the old release instructions from >>>>> the wiki? >>>> I think we should keep the old instructions for a little while >>>> longer (esp. for releasing the Geronimo Server). I added a third >>>> section that highlights the steps I did as a mixture of the new >>>> and the old process .. but I think it still alludes to the old >>>> process at the moment. I'll try to get that updated more clearly >>>> and remove the old process when it is complete. >>>>> >>>>> thanks >>>>> david jencks >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/geronimo-release- >>>>>> process.html >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Joe >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >