openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Dick <>
Subject Re: Proposed maintenance branch policy
Date Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:41:48 GMT
A couple quick thoughts. I think Craig's pretty much covered it though.

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Craig L Russell <>wrote:

> 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.

+1. It isn't perfect but I think we have a workable solution.

> 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?
I'd say that the issue is closed when the fix has been committed in trunk
and 1.1 (1.3 would be nice too). If a branch maintainer wants to pick up the
fix she/he can reopen the issue or just update the fixes attribute of the

>> 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). 
>>>> 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!
> Craig L Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System
> 408 276-5638
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

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