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: svn commit: r670740 - in /openjpa/branches/wls-maintenance: ./ 1000mp1/
Date Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:01:09 GMT
The biggest issue I have with the use of the Apache svn repository for  
this purpose is that the repository tag was not created nor will it be  
used to further the goals of the OpenJPA project.

If asked to explain why we have branched the repository and are doing  
maintenance on that branch, I'd have to say that it's solely for the  
support of a commercial product. There was no vote or other action by  
the project to establish the branch and it's not a group of OpenJPA  
developers working on a sub-project that needs a branch. It's "just" a  
commercial entity with its stuff in the Apache svn repo.

I see this as different from, for example, an agreement by the OpenJPA  
project to cut an early release, create a branch, and release a  
version (that happens to be used by a commercial product) and then  
maintain that version.

I'd suggest that for this purpose, BEA just use an internal svn  
repository for maintenance.

Crag


On Jun 25, 2008, at 5:21 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:

> So, going back to the original thread, one of the suggestions for  
> naming was:
>
>    http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openjpa/branches/r547073/
>
> It sounds like you'd prefer that approach. What about Craig and  
> Kevin? I'm assuming that Srinivasa is ok with that approach, since  
> he suggested it in his original email.
>
> -Patrick
>
> On Jun 25, 2008, at 2:55 PM, Michael Dick wrote:
>
>> Just my $0.02
>>
>> I have no problems with 1. Posthumously creating a branch will  
>> happen from
>> time to time.
>>
>> I think that 2 can cause problems. It's not clear to me from the  
>> branch name
>> where wlsmaintenance fits. Is it before or after 1.1.0? If I'm a new
>> developer should I try to merge my patch from trunk to
>> wlsmaintenance/1000mp1?
>>
>> Where it gets ugly is if the trend continued. Potentially creating  
>> branches
>> for each consumer could cause a lot of confusion.
>>
>> -mike
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Patrick Linskey  
>> <plinskey@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the approach taken so  
>>> far. It's
>>> definitely not the most ideal, but it seems to be a fair approach  
>>> given the
>>> situation (no branch was made at the time that WebLogic 10.0 shipped
>>> initially, and now there are changes that need to be made against  
>>> that
>>> version).
>>>
>>> As discussed earlier, with the 1.1.x branch, which was driven by us
>>> (WebLogic), we hope to minimize the changes made to the branch to  
>>> important
>>> bugfixes only, such that we can simply track that branch moving  
>>> forward. I
>>> expect that other organizations that push for a given release at a  
>>> given
>>> time to dovetail with their release trains will have similar  
>>> desires.
>>>
>>> It seems like the only differences between the case at hand and  
>>> that more
>>> general sentiment are:
>>>
>>> 1. this branch was created post facto, rather than up-front
>>>
>>> 2. the name of the branch has vendor connotations
>>>
>>> Are your objections to issue 1 (i.e., the existence of a post- 
>>> facto branch)
>>> or issue 2 (a vendor name appearing in a branch)?
>>>
>>> -Patrick
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 25, 2008, at 1:16 PM, Michael Dick wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree with Craig and Kevin. Vendor tags in the Apache SVN  
>>> repository
>>>> should be avoided.
>>>>
>>>> I'm also leery of adding another branch to maintain. Patrick  
>>>> alluded to
>>>> potentially dangerous changes which went into the 1.0.x branch  
>>>> which
>>>> caused
>>>> some concern for BEA. I'm guessing that rev 547073 is a point in  
>>>> time
>>>> before
>>>> similar changes went in.
>>>>
>>>> If that's the motivation for creating a branch I'm not entirely  
>>>> opposed to
>>>> it, but it should fit in with the rest of our naming conventions. I
>>>> checked
>>>> out rev 547073 and pom.xml lists the version as 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT.  
>>>> Any branch
>>>> made at this point would be between 0.9.7 and 1.0.0. I'd suggest  
>>>> a name
>>>> of
>>>> 0.9.x for the new branch. The poms should be rolled back and so  
>>>> on - might
>>>> have to do something to make OpenJPAVersion look correct to BEA  
>>>> customers
>>>> though.
>>>>
>>>> Without looking at the differences between 547073 and 1.0.0 I  
>>>> can't say
>>>> whether we really need this branch. I am not opposed to creating  
>>>> one but
>>>> it
>>>> should fit the naming conventions we've laid out.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> -mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@sun.com

>>>> >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I agree with Kevin that we should eschew vendor tags in the OpenJPA
>>>>> repository.
>>>>>
>>>>> It should be sufficient to have maintenance folks know from  
>>>>> which branch
>>>>> a
>>>>> maintenance release was cut (r547073, openjpa/trunk/ is really  
>>>>> where you
>>>>> shipped from??? After creating a 1.1.0 tag?). And we now have  
>>>>> trunk,
>>>>> 1.1.x,
>>>>> and 1.0.x branches as active code lines.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only reason that I can think of to have a vendor tag is so  
>>>>> you can do
>>>>> vendor maintenance in it. And I don't think we want to do that.  
>>>>> If you
>>>>> need
>>>>> to make patches for specific customers, it seems that a local  
>>>>> repository
>>>>> would be appropriate. And once the patch is verified to work,  
>>>>> put the
>>>>> update
>>>>> into an Apache svn branch.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do others think?
>>>>>
>>>>> Craig
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 23, 2008, at 2:36 PM, Kevin Sutter wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Wait a minute, Srinivasa.  This doesn't seem right.  I will  
>>>>> admit that I
>>>>>
>>>>>> didn't see your original posting asking for guidance, but I  
>>>>>> really don't
>>>>>> think we want WebLogic, WebSphere, Geronimo, or any other  
>>>>>> vendor's
>>>>>> specific
>>>>>> maintenance releases housed in the OpenJPA SVN repository.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It looks like WebLogic shipped something between the 0.9.7- 
>>>>>> incubating
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> the official 1.0.0 release.  Is there some reason why you  
>>>>>> couldn't just
>>>>>> support your WebLogic customers using the 1.0.x service  
>>>>>> stream?  It
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> seem that customers would appreciate using an official release  
>>>>>> (post
>>>>>> incubation) instead of the the one WebLogic initially shipped.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you need a complete branch?  Or, are you just interested in  
>>>>>> tagging
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> branch so that you can easily find the start of your service  
>>>>>> stream?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we need to do something different here.  I don't like the
>>>>>> approach
>>>>>> that you used.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kevin
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 3:36 PM, <ssegu@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Author: ssegu
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Date: Mon Jun 23 13:36:41 2008
>>>>>>> New Revision: 670740
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=670740&view=rev
>>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>>> Branched from revision that BEA WebLogic Server 10.0 MP1 was
 
>>>>>>> released
>>>>>>> from(rev #547073).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.nabble.com/OpenJPA-branches-td16547180.html#a16547180
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Added:
>>>>>>> openjpa/branches/wls-maintenance/
>>>>>>> openjpa/branches/wls-maintenance/1000mp1/
>>>>>>> - copied from r547073, openjpa/trunk/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> --
>>> Patrick Linskey
>>> 202 669 5907
>>>
>>>
>
> -- 
> 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