openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Patrick Linskey" <plins...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [REMINDER] 1.0.0 branch tonight
Date Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:45:26 GMT
> Maybe I wasn't clear in what I meant when I replied last night. I'm all for
> the 1.0.0 branch, I'm ambivalent about needing a 1.1.0 branch in addition to
> the 1.0.0 branch. I think that trunk can be used for all new function until

Agreed (almost). I agree that we should be doing 1.1-related work in
the trunk, at least for now.

The 1.0.0 branch that Marc created is a special-purpose,
release-transient thing. We won't cut a 1.0.1 release from the 1.0.0
branch. I'm suggesting that we create a 1.0 branch (note the lack of
the trailing patch number) that all the 1.0.x work will be isolated
to.

I think that we're talking about the same stuff, just with different terms.

-Patrick

On 8/21/07, Michael Dick <michael.d.dick@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think I agree with most of what you said - I just didn't explain myself
> well last night. Creating the 1.0.0 branch right away is the right thing to
> do, and it's one of the things that I messed up on with release 0.9.7.
>
> Maybe I wasn't clear in what I meant when I replied last night. I'm all for
> the 1.0.0 branch, I'm ambivalent about needing a 1.1.0 branch in addition to
> the 1.0.0 branch. I think that trunk can be used for all new function until
> we need a branch (ie release 1.1) or add function that requires a major
> version update (2.0).
>
> -Mike
>
> On 8/21/07, Patrick Linskey <plinskey@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The plan can change when we have a roadmap in place or have targetted
> > JIRA
> > > issues for 1.1 vs 2.0.0.
> > >
> > > While creating the 1.0 parent branch is probably cleaner schematically I
> > > don't see a practical benefit unless there are changes coming that
> > warrant a
> > > major release. Until we get to that point I'm content to play it by ear
> > a
> > > bit. That's just MHO though.
> >
> > So in my opinion, both major and minor releases deserve to be on their
> > own branches. In my experience, major and minor lines can be treated
> > as equivalent from a SCM standpoint.
> >
> > I believe that we should branch immediately because I think that it is
> > useful to limit the work in the 1.0.x line to bugfixes. For example, I
> > just committed a patch (a couple hours late) for OPENJPA-256. That
> > patch can trivially be part of 1.0.1, but other new work that we do
> > for other projects (for example, Ignacio's streaming-lob project)
> > seems like it's higher-impact, and therefore should go into the 1.1
> > line.
> >
> > I agree that this means more thinking on our part, in order to work
> > out where to put a given code change and in terms of periodic merging,
> > but I think that it's worth the cost. Otherwise, we essentially get
> > into a mode where we cannot do patch releases with any guarantees for
> > existing users.
> >
> > I think that probably a decent compromise policy is to branch
> > immediately, and then for people to do all work in trunk unless they
> > feel the urge to do otherwise. We could decide that we won't do bulk
> > merges from maintenance branches back to the trunk, so if people want
> > to create bugfix releases, they'll have to do the work to merge
> > patches from trunk to the branch on their own. In that environment,
> > we'd have an ad-hoc means to support patch releases without mandating
> > any additional work for OpenJPA contributors who are happy to consume
> > the trunk contents.
> >
> > -Patrick
> >
> > On 8/20/07, Michael Dick <michael.d.dick@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 8/20/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mprudhom@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > We will create a "1.0.0" branch as per the existing release process
> > > > at http://openjpa.apache.org/releasing-openjpa.html , so that if
> > > > anyone objects to the release for technical reasons (e.g., misplaces
> > > > license file), we can make those repairs in the "1.0.0" branch and
> > > > then re-cut the release without worrying about other changes that may
> > > > have been slipped into the trunk.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Whether or not we have a parent "1.0" branch to the "1.0.0" branch is
> > > > not something I have considered. Does anyone have any thoughts about
> > > > this? If so, we'll need to make it clear to people what work should
> > > > go into the "1.0" branch and what work should go into the trunk.
> > > > Since we don't have much of a long-term roadmap yet, it might make
> > > > sense to wait until we know which major features will go into OpenJPA
> > > > 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, etc. However, I don't have strong objections to making
> > > > a "1.0" branch.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd prefer to wait until we have a roadmap in place. If we create a
> > parent
> > > branch then we'll end up doing a lot of dual maintenance with trunk and
> > 1.0.
> > > If/when we need to add new function which breaks backwards compatibility
> > > then we can create a branch for 1.x and go forward with 2.0.0 in trunk.
> > >
> > > The plan can change when we have a roadmap in place or have targetted
> > JIRA
> > > issues for 1.1 vs 2.0.0.
> > >
> > > While creating the 1.0 parent branch is probably cleaner schematically I
> > > don't see a practical benefit unless there are changes coming that
> > warrant a
> > > major release. Until we get to that point I'm content to play it by ear
> > a
> > > bit. That's just MHO though.
> > >
> > > -Mike
> > >
> > > On Aug 20, 2007, at 6:20 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Well, I definitely don't think that work should happen in a branch
> > > > > called 1.0.0. Rather, it would seem that we would want to create
a
> > > > > branch called 1.0, and tag from it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think that we should make a 1.0 branch tonight, and then all
> > future
> > > > > work in the 1.0 line will happen in it. So, if something goes wrong
> > > > > while building / voting on the release, we'll resolve those issues
> > in
> > > > > the 1.0 branch, not in trunk. That way, people can keep on working
> > on
> > > > > trunk, which will immediately become the 1.1 train.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Patrick
> > > > >
> > > > > On 8/20/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mprudhom@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > >> Patrick-
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I expect that we'll keep the "1.0.0" branch around, and then
make a
> > > > >> "1.0.0" tag once the release is cut and approved.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> What happens with the "1.0.0" branch (i.e., if 1.0.1 work takes
> > place
> > > > >> in the 1.0.0 branch or in trunk) is, I believe, a topic that
has
> > yet
> > > > >> to be discussed.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Aug 20, 2007, at 1:42 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Hi,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I think that we should be making a permanent 1.0 branch,
and then
> > > > >>> tag
> > > > >>> off of it, so that we have somewhere to work on 1.0.1. Or
do
> > things
> > > > >>> work differently in svn?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> -Patrick
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On 8/20/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mprudhom@apache.org>
wrote:
> > > > >>>> OpenJPA Developers-
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Pursuant to the vote at http://www.nabble.com/-DISCUSS--set-a-
> > > > >>>> deadline-for-1.0.0-features-t4233167.html , a branch
for OpenJPA
> > > > >>>> 1.0.0 will be created tonight at 11:59 PM EST, and a
release
> > > > >>>> candidate will be immediately created for voting on the
final
> > 1.0.0
> > > > >>>> release.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> If anyone needs more time for essential bugfixes, now
is the
> > > > >>>> time to
> > > > >>>> speak up.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> --
> > > > >>>> Marc Prud'hommeaux
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> --
> > > > >>> Patrick Linskey
> > > > >>> 202 669 5907
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Patrick Linskey
> > > > > 202 669 5907
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Patrick Linskey
> > 202 669 5907
> >
>


-- 
Patrick Linskey
202 669 5907

Mime
View raw message