openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Prud'hommeaux <mprud...@apache.org>
Subject Re: svn commit: r569253 - in /openjpa/branches/1.0.0/openjpa-kernel/src/main: java/org/apache/openjpa/enhance/PCEnhancer.java resources/org/apache/openjpa/enhance/localizer.properties
Date Fri, 24 Aug 2007 19:54:25 GMT

> This is the first time that you have mentioned merging the 1.0.0
> branch contents anywhere other than trunk. That is a good thing. I
> believe that the extra branching is unnecessarily complex, but am
> perfectly happy with a situation where the x.y.0 branch ends up
> becoming the x.y branch post-release.

I only had intended to merge back to trunk because that is the only  
other branch we currently have.

If we had a "1.0" branch, then I'd merge onto that. Alternately, I  
can just rename the "1.0.0" branch to be "1.0" after the release is  
finalized and tagged. AFAIK, these two options would have an  
identical net effect, but it might be better to create a "1.0" branch  
now and merge the release branch "1.0.0" into it after the release  
because that is closer to my ideas for how we might handle the  
release-specific branches.



On Aug 24, 2007, at 3:35 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:

>> The source isolation we lose is that if we have a "1.0" branch from
>> which we directly cut release 1.0.0, and during the release process
>> Developer A commits a typo fix to LICENSE.txt they want in 1.0.0, and
>> Developer B fixes a semi-tested bugfix they don't want until 1.0.1,
>> then we don't have any way of differentiating or segregating those
>> different types of changes. Note that this is not just a hypothetical
>> concern: this actually was an issue in past releases on OpenJPA.
>
> IIRC, this only happened in the past because we had a single line of
> development. So sure, while cutting 0.9.6, changes that were targeted
> for 0.9.7 were happening at the same time. But now that we will have a
> release branch that is separate from trunk, I think that it is much
> less likely for us to run into those situations. In fact, I think that
> I would argue that it is usually undesirable to release a patch
> release while another fix targeted at the same minor release is
> halfway-implemented, as you've described.
>
>> It almost sounds like you think I am intending to manually re-create
>> the contents of the branch somewhere else, which isn't the case. I
>> just intend to merge the "1.0.0" branch contents into either "trunk"
>> to the potential "1.0" branch we've discussed. I simply don't
>
> This is the first time that you have mentioned merging the 1.0.0
> branch contents anywhere other than trunk. That is a good thing. I
> believe that the extra branching is unnecessarily complex, but am
> perfectly happy with a situation where the x.y.0 branch ends up
> becoming the x.y branch post-release.
>
> -Patrick
>
> On 8/24/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mprudhom@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 24, 2007, at 1:11 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
>>
>>>> "1.0.0". As we discussed before, we don't have a "1.0" branch  
>>>> because
>>>> we have not yet discussed a "1.0" roadmap.
>>>
>>> Let's put this bit to rest. I have been assuming per email  
>>> discussions
>>> from last year and general best practices that we will have patch
>>> releases that contain nothing but bugfixes. Given that, the 1.0.x
>>> roadmap is by definition constrained to patches. A roadmap for 1.1
>>> would be useful, but is totally separate from any need for a 1.0.x
>>> branch.
>>
>> OK, that makes sense. I merely bring it up to point out that the
>> scope of my branching activity was only ever designed to cover the
>> current 1.0.0 release.
>>
>>
>>>> The current "1.0.0" branch is *only* for changes that are to go  
>>>> into
>>>> the 1.0.0 release. Full stop.
>>>
>>> ... and I think that this is unnecessary. I do not believe that the
>>> concepts that you discussed are at all orthogonal to general 1.0.x
>>> maintenance. It is just a pathological special case in which  
>>> there has
>>> not yet been a 1.0.0 release, but is otherwise identical to the
>>> requirements for a 1.0.1 release or a 1.0.2 release.
>>
>> The issue of whether to have a short-term release-specific branch is,
>> in fact, completely orthogonal to the issue of having long-term
>> branches with release-targeted bugfixes and features.
>>
>> Nor is it pathological or in any way specific to OpenJPA version
>> 1.0.0. One of the numerous reasons why we should have a release-
>> specific branch is that we need a place where we commit the non "-
>> SNAPSHOT" version number to the pom.xmls. If we were to do this on
>> the trunk or on a long-term branch, then TeamCity or Continuum or
>> some other CI system that is running off those branches will create
>> release artifacts with the final "1.0.0" release number, a situation
>> we want to avoid. This is one of the issues we discussed when Craig
>> suggested this release branch strategy back in November (see http://
>> mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openjpa-dev/200611.mbox/%
>> 3c442CEE81-07D6-4067-9C74-96ADAD48FE82@SUN.com%3e ).
>>
>>
>>>> It sounds like there is an *orthogonal* concern that we do not yet
>>>> have a branch on which changes destined for 1.0.x should go. That's
>>>> an understandable concern, but it has nothing to do with the very
>>>> specific and short-lived purpose of the branch that is called
>>>> "1.0.0".
>>>
>>> I think that having a branch for this specific and short-lived  
>>> purpose
>>> is a Bad Idea. I see no reason why we should not just create a  
>>> branch
>>> for a release as described in my last two emails, rather than  
>>> creating
>>> a branch, throwing it away, and hopefully properly re-creating a
>>> branch with the same contents.
>>
>> It almost sounds like you think I am intending to manually re-create
>> the contents of the branch somewhere else, which isn't the case. I
>> just intend to merge the "1.0.0" branch contents into either "trunk"
>> to the potential "1.0" branch we've discussed. I simply don't
>> understand why you think this is a Bad Idea. Maybe if you posted some
>> concrete examples of the specific pitfalls you predict, then we would
>> be able to better understand your objections.
>>
>>
>>>> I'm perfectly fine with making a "1.0" branch on which we will  
>>>> commit
>>>> changes destined for 1.0.x releases. Ideally, this would have been
>>>> done before we branched for "1.0.0", so that we could have branched
>>>> from the "1.0" branch, but I don't know if subversion actually  
>>>> cares
>>>> about the hierarchy of branches when it comes to merging.
>>>
>>> Indeed, I think that ideally, it should have been done *instead* of
>>> creating the "1.0.0" branch.
>>>
>>>> So how about we do the following?
>>>>
>>>> 1. Immediately create a branch off of trunk called "1.0".  
>>>> Maintenance
>>>> changes destined for 1.0.1 will be made on that branch.
>>>> 2. Once the 1.0.0 release is approved and published, merge the
>>>> changes from the "1.0.0" branch into the "1.0" branch and tag the
>>>> released bits in the "1.0.0" branch as "1.0.0", then delete the
>>>> "1.0.0" branch.
>>>> 3. In the future, cut the "1.0.1" branch off of the "1.0" branch.
>>>
>>> I think that we should do the following:
>>>
>>> 1. rename the "1.0.0" branch to "1.0". Maintenance changes destined
>>> fro 1.0.1 will be made on that branch.
>>
>> I will do this once the release is approved and published.
>>
>>> 2. Once the 1.0.0 release is approved and published, create a 1.0.0
>>> tag, and do not delete the 1.0 branch.
>>
>> I will do that (probably before #1, since one or two things have been
>> already committed to the 1.0.0 branch after the latest artifact was
>> uploaded for voting).
>>
>>> 3. In the future, do not cut a "1.0.1" branch at all. Instead, when
>>> the time comes for 1.0.1 work, do it directly from the 1.0 branch
>>> (which, per my assertion above, contains only bugfixes, and so does
>>> not risk tainting the branch), and create a tag from the branch.
>>>
>>> I think that this simplifies and streamlines the process, and loses
>>> none of the current source-isolation that we have in our
>>> transient-branch strategy.
>>
>> The source isolation we lose is that if we have a "1.0" branch from
>> which we directly cut release 1.0.0, and during the release process
>> Developer A commits a typo fix to LICENSE.txt they want in 1.0.0, and
>> Developer B fixes a semi-tested bugfix they don't want until 1.0.1,
>> then we don't have any way of differentiating or segregating those
>> different types of changes. Note that this is not just a hypothetical
>> concern: this actually was an issue in past releases on OpenJPA.
>>
>> In conclusion, the crux of the disagreement seems simply to be: do we
>> want a transient release-specific branch or not. I think we do, for
>> the reasons listed above. You appear to deem it sufficient to have
>> only a long-lived parent branch from which we directly cut the
>> release. It's a fairly minor issue, but one I expect we will want to
>> discuss more and vote on before the the next release.
>>
>>
>>
>>> -Patrick
>>>
>>> On 8/24/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mprudhom@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think the point of having a release branch is so that:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Cosmetic/miscellaneous changes can be made in the release branch
>>>> to fix problems with the candidate builds.
>>>> 2. More importantly, other people can make changes on one of the
>>>> parent branch(es) during the sometimes multi-week release voting
>>>> process without messing up the release branch.
>>>>
>>>> The current "1.0.0" branch is *only* for changes that are to go  
>>>> into
>>>> the 1.0.0 release. Full stop.
>>>>
>>>> It sounds like there is an *orthogonal* concern that we do not yet
>>>> have a branch on which changes destined for 1.0.x should go. That's
>>>> an understandable concern, but it has nothing to do with the very
>>>> specific and short-lived purpose of the branch that is called
>>>> "1.0.0". As we discussed before, we don't have a "1.0" branch  
>>>> because
>>>> we have not yet discussed a "1.0" roadmap.
>>>>
>>>> I'm perfectly fine with making a "1.0" branch on which we will  
>>>> commit
>>>> changes destined for 1.0.x releases. Ideally, this would have been
>>>> done before we branched for "1.0.0", so that we could have branched
>>>> from the "1.0" branch, but I don't know if subversion actually  
>>>> cares
>>>> about the hierarchy of branches when it comes to merging.
>>>>
>>>> So how about we do the following?
>>>>
>>>> 1. Immediately create a branch off of trunk called "1.0".  
>>>> Maintenance
>>>> changes destined for 1.0.1 will be made on that branch.
>>>> 2. Once the 1.0.0 release is approved and published, merge the
>>>> changes from the "1.0.0" branch into the "1.0" branch and tag the
>>>> released bits in the "1.0.0" branch as "1.0.0", then delete the
>>>> "1.0.0" branch.
>>>> 3. In the future, cut the "1.0.1" branch off of the "1.0" branch.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 24, 2007, at 12:23 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> It seems like we should be able to accomplish that by renaming  
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> 1.0.0branch to
>>>>>> 1.0. When we're done with 1.0.0 we can create a new branch and  
>>>>>> tag
>>>>>> with the
>>>>>> correct name.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree completely.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that making the branch and then throwing it away and then
>>>>> creating another branch with allegedly-identical contents sounds
>>>>> error
>>>>> prone and cumbersome.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I mentioned earlier, I think that we should change our
>>>>> processes to
>>>>> create a release branch for an x.y.0 release from wherever it is
>>>>> that
>>>>> that branch is being sourced (trunk, somewhere else, etc.), and  
>>>>> then
>>>>> work on a release on that branch. Once the release is done, we  
>>>>> then
>>>>> tag that moment in time, but keep the x.y release branch alive for
>>>>> work that should go into x.y.1. When the time comes for the x.y.1
>>>>> release, we then do not need to create one of these release
>>>>> branches,
>>>>> since the only work that's happening in the x.y branch should be
>>>>> maintenance work anyways. We just work on the release in the  
>>>>> release
>>>>> branch, get it done, and then tag it when it's ready.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that our current model of making these transient  
>>>>> branches is
>>>>> well-suited for a single-branch methodology. That worked well
>>>>> while we
>>>>> were working towards a 1.0.0 release, since we never planned to  
>>>>> have
>>>>> hardening releases off of 0.9.7, for example. But now that we're
>>>>> moving past 1.0.0, I think that it's important to have a branching
>>>>> strategy in place that supports patch line maintenance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>
>>>>> -Patrick
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/24/07, Michael Dick <michael.d.dick@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/24/07, Patrick Linskey <plinskey@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree with most of what Marc is saying. However, I strongly
 
>>>>>>> feel
>>>>>>> that we need to change how we're doing our branching strategy.
>>>>>>> In my
>>>>>>> opinion, creating these throwaway branches unnecessarily
>>>>>>> complicates
>>>>>>> the process of making a maintenance branch for a given release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1. Marc (or any other release manager) shouldn't have to merge
>>>>>> changes back
>>>>>> into trunk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can someone explain to me where we are going to do 1.0.1 work in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> current process?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Prior to our discussion in a different thread I thought that  
>>>>>> 1.0.1
>>>>>> work
>>>>>> would be done in the 1.0.0 branch that we're using now. Basically
>>>>>> when we're
>>>>>> done with 1.0.0 we would create a tag. Anything committed after
>>>>>> that point
>>>>>> would be part of 1.0.1 until we release it and create another  
>>>>>> tag.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The new plan is to create a branch and call it 1.0. 1.0.0, 1.0.1,
>>>>>> 1.0.2 etc
>>>>>> are branches off of 1.0 (I think).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems like we should be able to accomplish that by renaming  
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> 1.0.0branch to
>>>>>> 1.0. When we're done with 1.0.0 we can create a new branch and  
>>>>>> tag
>>>>>> with the
>>>>>> correct name.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Mike
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Patrick
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/24/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mprudhom@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Kevin-
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unless Patrick objects to the current (fourth) vote on the
 
>>>>>>>> 1.0.0
>>>>>>>> artifact based on this commit, it won't make it into the
1.0.0
>>>>>>>> final
>>>>>>>> release bits.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Once 1.0.0 is released, I will tag the currently *released*
>>>>>>>> source
>>>>>>>> code in the 1.0.0 branch as "1.0.0", and then merge the 

>>>>>>>> *latest*
>>>>>>>> source code in the 1.0.0 branch back into the trunk, so any
>>>>>>>> additions
>>>>>>>> to the 1.0.0 branch will certainly be merged back to the
trunk
>>>>>>>> (although they will only be released in the 1.0.0 assembly
 
>>>>>>>> if we
>>>>>>>> happen to need to cut another release).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I will document this process on the revised release
>>>>>>>> instructions on
>>>>>>>> the wiki once I get around to assembling them. We are playing
a
>>>>>>>> little fast and loose with last-minute changes in what should
>>>>>>>> probably be a more solemn process, but since this is the
first
>>>>>>>> major
>>>>>>>> release as a TLP, I think we can make a few exceptions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Aug 24, 2007, at 8:37 AM, Kevin Sutter wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Patrick and Marc,
>>>>>>>>> Help me understand our process here.  This commit is
 
>>>>>>>>> similar to
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> one I
>>>>>>>>> did the other evening.  It was committed into the 1.0.0
branch
>>>>>>>>> after the 4th
>>>>>>>>> re-spin and [VOTE] was posted.  So, does this require
yet
>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>> respin?
>>>>>>>>> If not, then what happens to these changes?  The [VOTE]
would
>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> include
>>>>>>>>> these changes.  So, would these changes automatically
become
>>>>>>>>> part
>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>> 1.0.1 snapshot release?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Kevin
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 8/24/07, pcl@apache.org <pcl@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Author: pcl
>>>>>>>>>> Date: Thu Aug 23 22:27:43 2007
>>>>>>>>>> New Revision: 569253
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=569253&view=rev
>>>>>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>>>>>> Minor logging / exception handling improvements
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>     openjpa/branches/1.0.0/openjpa-kernel/src/main/java/org/
>>>>>>>>>> apache/
>>>>>>>>>> openjpa/enhance/PCEnhancer.java
>>>>>>>>>>     openjpa/branches/1.0.0/openjpa-kernel/src/main/resources/
>>>>>>>>>> org/
>>>>>>>>>> apache/openjpa/enhance/localizer.properties
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
>>>>>>>>>> openjpa/branches/1.0.0/openjpa-kernel/src/main/java/org/

>>>>>>>>>> apache/
>>>>>>>>>> openjpa/enhance/PCEnhancer.java
>>>>>>>>>> URL:
>>>>>>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openjpa/branches/1.0.0/openjpa-
>>>>>>>>>> kernel/
>>>>>>>>>> src/main/java/org/apache/openjpa/enhance/PCEnhancer.java?
>>>>>>>>>> rev=569253&r1=569252&r2=569253&view=diff
>>>>>>>>>> =============================================================

>>>>>>>>>> ==
>>>>>>>>>> ==
>>>>>>>>>> ====
>>>>>>>>>> =========
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>> openjpa/branches/1.0.0/openjpa-kernel/src/main/java/org/

>>>>>>>>>> apache/
>>>>>>>>>> openjpa/enhance/PCEnhancer.java
>>>>>>>>>> (original)
>>>>>>>>>> +++
>>>>>>>>>> openjpa/branches/1.0.0/openjpa-kernel/src/main/java/org/

>>>>>>>>>> apache/
>>>>>>>>>> openjpa/enhance/PCEnhancer.java
>>>>>>>>>> Thu Aug 23 22:27:43 2007
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -467,7 +467,8 @@
>>>>>>>>>>          } catch (OpenJPAException ke) {
>>>>>>>>>>              throw ke;
>>>>>>>>>>          } catch (Exception e) {
>>>>>>>>>> -            throw new GeneralException(e);
>>>>>>>>>> +            throw new GeneralException(_loc.get("enhance-
>>>>>>>>>> error",
>>>>>>>>>> +                _managedType.getType().getName(),
 
>>>>>>>>>> e.getMessage
>>>>>>>>>> ()), e);
>>>>>>>>>>          }
>>>>>>>>>>      }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -2736,7 +2737,10 @@
>>>>>>>>>>              } catch (Throwable t) {
>>>>>>>>>>                  // last-chance catch for bug #283
(which can
>>>>>>>>>> happen
>>>>>>>>>>                  // in a variety of ClassLoading
 
>>>>>>>>>> environments)
>>>>>>>>>> -                _log.warn(_loc.get("enhance-uid-access",
>>>>>>>>>> _meta), t);
>>>>>>>>>> +                if (_log.isTraceEnabled())
>>>>>>>>>> +                    _log.warn(_loc.get("enhance-uid-access",
>>>>>>>>>> _meta), t);
>>>>>>>>>> +                else
>>>>>>>>>> +                    _log.warn(_loc.get("enhance-uid-access",
>>>>>>>>>> _meta));
>>>>>>>>>>              }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>              // if we couldn't access the  
>>>>>>>>>> serialVersionUID, we
>>>>>>>>>> will have
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -3672,10 +3676,13 @@
>>>>>>>>>>       * attribute name for the backing field <code>name</

>>>>>>>>>> code>.
>>>>>>>>>>       */
>>>>>>>>>>      private String fromBackingFieldName(String name)
{
>>>>>>>>>> -        if (_meta.getAccessType() ==
>>>>>>>>>> ClassMetaData.ACCESS_PROPERTY
>>>>>>>>>> +        // meta is null when doing persistence-aware
>>>>>>>>>> enhancement
>>>>>>>>>> +        if (_meta != null
>>>>>>>>>> +            && _meta.getAccessType() ==
>>>>>>>>>> ClassMetaData.ACCESS_PROPERTY
>>>>>>>>>>              && _fieldsToAttrs.containsKey(name))
>>>>>>>>>> -            name = (String) _fieldsToAttrs.get(name);
>>>>>>>>>> -        return name;
>>>>>>>>>> +            return (String) _fieldsToAttrs.get(name);
>>>>>>>>>> +        else
>>>>>>>>>> +            return name;
>>>>>>>>>>      }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>      /**
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Modified:
>>>>>>>>>> openjpa/branches/1.0.0/openjpa-kernel/src/main/resources/org/
>>>>>>>>>> apache/openjpa/enhance/localizer.properties
>>>>>>>>>> URL:
>>>>>>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openjpa/branches/1.0.0/openjpa-
>>>>>>>>>> kernel/
>>>>>>>>>> src/main/resources/org/apache/openjpa/enhance/
>>>>>>>>>> localizer.properties?
>>>>>>>>>> rev=569253&r1=569252&r2=569253&view=diff
>>>>>>>>>> =============================================================

>>>>>>>>>> ==
>>>>>>>>>> ==
>>>>>>>>>> ====
>>>>>>>>>> =========
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>> openjpa/branches/1.0.0/openjpa-kernel/src/main/resources/org/
>>>>>>>>>> apache/openjpa/enhance/localizer.properties
>>>>>>>>>> (original)
>>>>>>>>>> +++
>>>>>>>>>> openjpa/branches/1.0.0/openjpa-kernel/src/main/resources/org/
>>>>>>>>>> apache/openjpa/enhance/localizer.properties
>>>>>>>>>> Thu Aug 23 22:27:43 2007
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -197,4 +197,5 @@
>>>>>>>>>> no-accessor: Could not find method called {0} in
type {1}.
>>>>>>>>>> unspecified-unenhanced-types: One or more of the
types in {0}
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> relations \
>>>>>>>>>>      to other unenhanced types that were not specified.
These
>>>>>>>>>> unspecified
>>>>>>>>>> types \
>>>>>>>>>> -    are: {1}
>>>>>>>>>> \ No newline at end of file
>>>>>>>>>> +    are: {1}
>>>>>>>>>> +enhance-error: An error occurred while enhancing
{0}.
>>>>>>>>>> Exception
>>>>>>>>>> message:
>>>>>>>>>> {1}
>>>>>>>>>> \ No newline at end of file
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Patrick Linskey
>>>>>>> 202 669 5907
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Patrick Linskey
>>>>> 202 669 5907
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Patrick Linskey
>>> 202 669 5907
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Patrick Linskey
> 202 669 5907


Mime
View raw message