Mailing-List: contact dev-help@openjpa.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@openjpa.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of plinskey@gmail.com designates
 64.233.166.183 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=ZrEUxY/TgbNV16wEqnhsT5xQCsMomMPZUtZ1Kzl2Apa4iL/8BGwQurLEp8Xm2RmuTKlByvaQsE2O2+M+7q82aE18xDgrp6/w63y1J2vy0zrAjXNrl5qsjcjZns79okj9ZreRNqPF9aiUjfwDm4R1OKJYtzYVKfwr0vZn9ZtO4uw=
Message-ID: <7262f25e0708241011k8350c0cl6453750e4a2cbb68@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:11:00 -0700
From: "Patrick Linskey" <plinskey@gmail.com>
To: dev@openjpa.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
In-Reply-To: <48DF16CC-9860-4911-BE74-82F59C730CB2@apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20070824052744.B97E61A9832@eris.apache.org>
	 <89c0c52c0708240537t50a7d8e9s764845e90b416773@mail.gmail.com>
	 <5BF87720-B88C-40F4-B596-E77DBB3957DF@apache.org>
	 <7262f25e0708240853j6d95a26cjd41a8483ed13077a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <72c1350f0708240908q15b8179bw7380a35713fbe93c@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7262f25e0708240923g371f5408g93115f3c1c426799@mail.gmail.com>
	 <48DF16CC-9860-4911-BE74-82F59C730CB2@apache.org>

> "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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

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.

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.

-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