openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Ezzio <>
Subject Re: Proposed maintenance branch policy
Date Tue, 28 Apr 2009 21:45:21 GMT
Hi Craig,

In some cases the process starts differently.  A fix is needed for 
branch 1.1, and to be polite (and conforming) it is also applied to 
trunk.  So then, what's the process for the 1.2 and 1.3 branches in this 
case?  It seems unfair that the person fixing 1.1 and trunk should also 
fix (really nag and fix) every other branch, and it seems inefficient 
that the branch managers be left to fend for themselves in determining 
which fixes applied to trunk might be of interest to them.  And when is 
the JIRA issue closed?

Hmm.  I missed how to indicate in the JIRA that a problem is fixed in a 
particular branch but still pending as a problem for other branches. 
Could you take a look at 1002, and tell me how to indicate that the 
problem is fixed for 2.0, but remains unfixed for 1.3?



Craig L Russell wrote:
> Hi David,
> On Apr 28, 2009, at 1:43 PM, David Ezzio wrote:
>> Hi Craig,
>> I'm not sure I understand the following:
>> "Fixes which are committed to an earlier release should also be 
>> present 'up-stream'. Ie a fix for 1.0.x should also appear in 1.2.x."
>> I'm unclear about who should make it appear in the upstream releases. 
>> In other words, I apply a fix today to trunk and to 1.1.x (with 
>> approval).  Who applies the fix to 1.2.x and 1.3.x?
> I'd say you start with trunk and work backwards, recommending that the 
> fix be applied to 1.3.x and if you get any pushback, then stop. If it's 
> ok for 1.3.x, then try 1.2.x. Rinse and repeat.
>> And how do we track  all the branches where a fix has been, should, or 
>> should not be applied.
>> Ideally, the JIRA would do this work for us, but maybe there's a 
>> simpler way.
> I think JIRA actually does support the issue being fixed in multiple 
> releases. I don't know of a simpler way than marking the JIRA with 
> multiple releases.
> Craig
>> Thanks,
>> David
>> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I think it would be a good idea to formalize OpenJPA's policy with 
>>> regard to maintenance branch responsibilities.
>>> The draft is published at 
>>> review/comment.
>>> Feel free to comment by either posting on the wiki or discussing on 
>>> this email thread. Once we have consensus, the wiki will be 
>>> considered policy.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Craig
>>> Craig L Russell
>>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System
>>> 408 276-5638
>>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
> Craig L Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System
> 408 276-5638
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

View raw message