On Nov 12, 2006, at 1:46 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:

>> On Nov 12, 2006, at 1:26 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
>>
>>> I think that the issue is that the thing that is voted on
>> is the tag.
>>
>> Is that actually right? My understanding was that the thing that is
>> voted on is the artifacts (in this case, the binary and source zip
>> archives), and that the VCS is not a fundamental part of the release
>> voting process.


Ahh ... understood.


>
> I guess I meant "the thing that is voted on is what was built from the
> tag." Assuming that development continues, then if you work from the
> tag, people only need to consider the differences that have  
> happened on
> the tag. If we build from the mainline, then people need to  
> consider all
> changes.
>
>>> Additional work might be happening as the vote proceeds; that
>>> additional
>>> work may or may not be ready for prime-time.
>>>
>>> I expect that over time, we'll be branching earlier anyways
>> and doing
>>> destabilizing work on a branch separate from the release candidate
>>> branch.
>>
>> True, but my question is whether we should make branches for
>> the sole
>> purpose of cutting a release or not, which is why I was wondering if
>> actually saves effort or not.
>
> My understanding is that tags and branches are the same thing in  
> svn, so
> Craig's proposal was that the work of fixing things would happen in  
> the
> dir created for the tag, and then get merged (or duplicated) into
> mainline.
>
> Consider, for example, my localizer optimization, Abe's nested  
> subquery
> fixes, and my JDK1.4 switchover. Those all happened after the tag was
> created. If we include those changes in the thing that we vote on  
> next,
> then presumably I should take those changes into account (including
> testing to make sure that the new JDK1.4 stuff really works, etc.)  
> when
> voting. I'd prefer to just automatically saying "+1" since I gave a +1
> last time and the changes you made to resolve Eddie's issues are  
> things
> that I agree with.
>
> For the particular issues at hand, I don't think that there is much
> destabilization, but I do agree that jumping back to current main and
> re-tagging seems like it's bound to cause problems at some point. It
> seems like once there's a 0.9.6 tag, we shouldn't be changing the  
> number
> of the mainline back to 0.9.6, but should instead change things in the
> tag.
>
> Speaking of which, is there a way in svn to freeze a directory, so  
> that
> once 0.9.6 is approved, we can't mutate that tag / branch / directory?
>
> -Patrick
> ______________________________________________________________________ 
> _
> Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may  
> contain
> information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and   
> affiliated
> entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted   
> and/or
> legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the  
> individual
> or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended  
> recipient,
> and have received this message in error, please immediately return  
> this
> by email and then delete it.