openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <Craig.Russ...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: 1.0 steps?
Date Mon, 09 Jul 2007 17:10:00 GMT
Hi Patrick,

I like the proposal. Once we all agree on this strategy, can you  
update the wiki on release policy to match our plans?

We will also need to do more work in JIRA to track an issue that will  
be fixed in multiple branches, as well as issues that apply to  
multiple branches.

Craig

On Jul 9, 2007, at 10:05 AM, Patrick Linskey wrote:

>> Patrick did for the previous release?  I just find it kind of  
>> difficult to
>> be working on various problems and then "ding", the timer goes off  
>> and we've
>> cut off development for a given release.  It's probably time to start
>> working out a candidate release cycle and content.
>
> Agreed -- hence this thread, in fact.
>
> Additionally, I'd like to see a small addition to our process. I
> alluded to this in my original message, but it's probably worth
> calling out explicitly.
>
> I think that the model of essentially releasing directly from the
> mainline worked well for our incubating / 0.9 releases. But I don't
> think that this really scales that well for GA-style releases, since
> there are often going to be various projects going on in the mainline
> that might have different lifecycles.
>
> So, from a branching standpoint, I'd like to see us create a branch
> off of the trunk when we start zeroing in on a release. Unlike
> branches that we created earlier, these branches are not just for the
> purpose of assembling the release artifacts, but are also for work
> happening to get to the point of being release-ready. Additionally,
> they will live on in time as "the" branch for a particular release
> number. So, under my proposal, we will create a 1.0 branch soon, and
> ongoing work to resolve issues slated for 1.0 will happen in that
> branch. Once 1.0.0 is cut, we will tag that branch, and the only work
> that will happen in that branch will be bugfixes for 1.0.1. Once 1.0.1
> is cut, we will again tag the branch, and repeat.
>
> In my experience, generally, it works well to branch like this for
> every major.minor combination. I.e., we don't create separate branches
> for version 1 and version 2; rather, we create a branch for 1.0, 1.1,
> 1.2, 2.0, etc. once we get to that point on trunk.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -Patrick
>
> On 7/9/07, Kevin Sutter <kwsutter@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > What is remaining to get to a 1.0 release? Are there any things in
>> > particular that people think are important to work on? Maybe it's
>> > about time for us to create a branch for 1.0 finalization and
>> > hardening.
>>
>>
>> This probably depends on what our goal is for a 1.0 release.  If  
>> it's just
>> to have a 1.0 release since we graduated to a TLP, then we're  
>> probably close
>> to starting that process.  But, if we are looking for a certain  
>> level and
>> hardness of function, then we still may have a fews things to  
>> clean up.  I'm
>> okay with going for a 1.0 release just to have one, but I would  
>> then like to
>> start working on defining the follow-on release (1.0.1 or 1.1).
>>
>> No matter what type of 1.0 release we decide to go for, maybe we  
>> should
>> incorporate the voting mechanism within JIRA to help determine  
>> what Issues
>> are important?  I am not totally familiar with this process, but  
>> it allows
>> users to vote on the Issues that are most important to them.  Each  
>> user is
>> allowed a certain number of votes (to keep them from voting for "all"
>> Issues).  We can use that as input to our selection criteria.
>>
>> But, before we open up for a vote, do we need some time to review  
>> all of the
>> open Issues and assert 1.0 vs post-1.0?  Something along the lines  
>> of what
>> Patrick did for the previous release?  I just find it kind of  
>> difficult to
>> be working on various problems and then "ding", the timer goes off  
>> and we've
>> cut off development for a given release.  It's probably time to start
>> working out a candidate release cycle and content.
>>
>> Kevin
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Patrick Linskey
> 202 669 5907

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!


Mime
View raw message