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 Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:21:50 GMT
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


Mime
View raw message