openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig L Russell <Craig.Russ...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: Proposed maintenance branch policy
Date Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:20:14 GMT
Hi David,

You can edit the issue and mark it as fix for 2.0.0 and 1.3 (which it  
already is) and mark it as affects versions 2.0.0 and 1.3 (which it  
isn't yet).

There's no succinct way to indicate tell the patch has been applied to  
the trunk except by reading the svn log that's part of the issue and  
reading your comments.

1.3 is an open release (no release manager watching it) so feel free  
to apply the patch to 1.3.x also.

I agree with you that the process isn't perfect with regard to  
applying this fix to other branches. I don't know what more guidance  
we should offer committers with a patch like this.

Craig

On Apr 28, 2009, at 2:45 PM, David Ezzio wrote:

> 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?
>
> Cheers,
>
> David
>
>
> 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 http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/openjpa/OpenJPA+Release+Management

>>>>  for 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 http://db.apache.org/jdo
>>>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>>>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>> 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!

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
View raw message