Mailing-List: contact dev-help@openjpa.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@openjpa.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of techhusky@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.132.241 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version
         :content-type:references;
        b=GjKhNF7zWIDc2oG1jBFyu7FZocm3yMn4SUrd7aP/GrsocWdgmm1Qpag4OgC0VshIRE
         AStDFO8dc4D/iEsZ1CFlrCAkNZzd/3gVb71R7h0t0m2gPXq8Ry77yYcpuULkeftAQRNC
         cAAws/jPxtqBO6mYHvAhtRBP5lYiQ9mw7zwOo=
Message-ID: <c4a1048f0812090842j655cd5b1rbb484500f21b93a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 10:42:09 -0600
From: "Jeremy Bauer" <techhusky@gmail.com>
To: dev@openjpa.apache.org
Subject: Re: OpenJPA 2.0 milestone releases
In-Reply-To: <72c1350f0812050711l619cc302g7ddaa266218937b4@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_59958_16803611.1228840929706"
References: <c4a1048f0812030703m707e10e4scbe07742f75365a9@mail.gmail.com>
	 <8e68c8e90812030740n7189232brb71a6b6b92318adc@mail.gmail.com>
	 <c4a1048f0812040811x36ff7b96l4bc93d3214df5864@mail.gmail.com>
	 <5BDD42CB-B9D6-4763-A909-59E80967A949@SUN.com>
	 <72c1350f0812041950w7a5c4bffj1780577d51094f23@mail.gmail.com>
	 <c4a1048f0812050650j3e6480e2n26be0e41edda40c8@mail.gmail.com>
	 <72c1350f0812050711l619cc302g7ddaa266218937b4@mail.gmail.com>

------=_Part_59958_16803611.1228840929706
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

There haven't been any new opinions on this issue in a while and I'm leaning
toward Mike's suggestion of only using Mx to publish to the snapshot
repository.  Unless I hear a strong opinion otherwise, I'll remove the
milestone identifier from version, allowing users to more easily consume the
daily snapshot builds.  Thanks, Craig, for raising this issue.
+1 for creating JIRA milestone releases w/o branching.  I too think it'll
help with issue tracking.

-Jeremy

On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Michael Dick <michael.d.dick@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Jeremy,
>
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Jeremy Bauer <techhusky@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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?
> >
>
> There's no reason why we can't add Mx at a later time. That would be a
> benefit to users who always want the latest snapshot, regardless of the
> milestone.
>
> Users who want a specific milestone can specify the latest one from the
> snapshot repos (or central if we do a formal release).
>
>
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> JIRA versions and Maven releases are totally separate entities (pun not
> intended). Similarly a release in JIRA is not necessarily tied to a branch
> in SVN.
>
> I'd be inclined to publish Mx builds to the SNAPSHOT repository (less
> stringent checking - quicker to publish). Create a JIRA release for it (so
> we can track when issues crop up and when they're fixed). Create a tag in
> SVN for easy access, but do not create a branch.
>
> I'm open to other ideas though,
>
> -mike
>
>
> >
> > -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!
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

------=_Part_59958_16803611.1228840929706--