openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jeremy Bauer" <techhu...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: OpenJPA 2.0 milestone releases
Date Fri, 05 Dec 2008 14:50:46 GMT
Mike,
I was thinking the same thing.  Providing milestone releases as an OpenJPA
published, mostly stable, tested release with clear definition of the new
function it includes.  Based on Craig's observation, I don't know that means
we have to include the -Mx- identifier in the builds though.  I think it
would help us (dev) and users identify which milestone version of code is in
development and use, but it does have obvious maintenance implications.  If
we do not publish official maven releases maybe Mx it isn't required - could
we add the Mx at the point when we do the milestone build?

Regarding a maven publish, is it possible to publish a release to the maven
repository, say an M1 release and not branch off or create a corresponding
M1 release in JIRA?  It may be useful to publish milestone releases in maven
(for those who use maven), but not add the overhead of creating an svn
branch which we do not intend (and wouldn't make sense) to maintain.

-Jeremy

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:50 PM, Michael Dick <mikedd@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi Craig,
>
> I think it depends on how official we want to make the milestone releases.
> I
> was thinking of the milestones being "smaller" convenience releases, not
> "official" releases that get published to maven central. When we cut a
> milestone release we'd leave it in the SNAPSHOT repository so that folks
> can
> test a stable(ish) version. At the same time it wouldn't be an official
> release with all the overhead and additional work that implies (maintenance
> branch?).
>
> What do other people think?
>
> -mike
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@sun.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Hi Jeremy,
> >
> > I don't understand why the version needs to be changed from simply
> > 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT to 2.0.0-Mx-SNAPSHOT. Seems like we would be making
> trouble
> > for folks who want to use the release. Wouldn't we want to make the
> change
> > at the time we want to release, e.g. from 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT to 2.0.0-M2?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Craig
> >
> >
> > On Dec 4, 2008, at 8:11 AM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
> >
> >  Three in favor, no oppose.  Motion passes.  :-)
> >> The build artifacts for each milestone will be named
> >> openjpa*-2.0.0-Mx-SNAPSHOT.jar, where x is the milestone number.  I'll
> >> commit the pom updates for M1 shortly.
> >>
> >> -Jeremy
> >>
> >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:40 AM, Albert Lee <allee8285@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>  +1.
> >>>
> >>> Albert Lee.
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Jeremy Bauer <techhusky@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>  OpenJPA dev's,
> >>>> Now that we have a few iteration periods defined and are getting
> content
> >>>> into iteration 1, I think we should consider planning OpenJPA 2.0
> >>>>
> >>> milestone
> >>>
> >>>> releases.  Based on a 3 (sometimes 4) week iteration schedule and the
> >>>>
> >>> fact
> >>>
> >>>> that it takes ~ a week to create and publish a release, how does a
> >>>> milestone
> >>>> release every other (ie. after each even numbered) iteration sound?
>  If
> >>>>
> >>> we
> >>>
> >>>> discover that a milestone release every other iteration is not
> optimal,
> >>>>
> >>> we
> >>>
> >>>> can adjust as appropriate.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Jeremy
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Albert Lee.
> >>>
> >>>
> > Craig L Russell
> > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
> > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
> >
> >
>

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