openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael Dick" <michael.d.d...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r670740 - in /openjpa/branches/wls-maintenance: ./ 1000mp1/
Date Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:55:29 GMT
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
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message