Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of kevan.miller@gmail.com
 designates 74.125.46.28 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references
         :x-mailer;
        b=CAu1BW2yz8Te2VDjp2mO7C4SiS663gjzSQooAHzZnoCRxwJCxikUJxkTPsZKwGolxI
         VlYSrsZ+NwZjtP9YQzCRg99HrdlEg/6gdAinyl7UAM6NQjS0v6DsVTCOYCvQJ0M9V70b
         phoD2UQgGBLNhd4+jKVOGCFd7h1+d8c06+Tuk=
Message-Id: <28B42692-2A62-43D9-BA10-9010C8C0269F@gmail.com>
From: Kevan Miller <kevan.miller@gmail.com>
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <489B92BF.2080004@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v926)
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Time to create a geronimo/repo branch in svn for
 private depends
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 22:52:31 -0400
References: <489AF50E.40706@apache.org>
 <D401ECCD-BBEA-4AC4-A33B-38A43BBC70D2@gmail.com>
 <489B92BF.2080004@apache.org>


On Aug 7, 2008, at 8:26 PM, Donald Woods wrote:

> True, but wouldn't that introduce the overhead of our release  
> process and voting?

I wouldn't call it overhead. I'd call it oversight. Our community is  
releasing the patches and publishing the binaries. Server release  
votes have covered this, to date. Any process changes must maintain  
this same level of oversight.

>
>
> Would we create a geronimo/patches subproject arranged like our  
> specs, where each artifact would be its own subdir and still check  
> the patched artifacts in for the build to use and then move them to  
> tags after they are released?

We could release them separately. Or, we could include them (as they  
are currently) in the server. The difference is that there would be  
org.apache.geronimo.patches artifacts in our release and snapshot  
repositories.

>
> Would we version the artifacts based on the originating project or  
> with a double version like we specs (which would be hard to follow)?

Either way would work. For simplicity, my tendency is to include them  
in our server tree. However, there may be differing opinions. I'm fine  
either way...

--kevan