openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Patrick Linskey <plins...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r670740 - in /openjpa/branches/wls-maintenance: ./ 1000mp1/
Date Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:04:53 GMT
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
View raw message