openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] release openjpa-2.2.0?
Date Mon, 09 Jan 2012 18:46:19 GMT
that's perfectly fine. Thus I will start creating the branch in +4h if no one objects?

What should the branch name be? 


"2.2.x" is d'accord with your naming conventions?


txs and LieGrue,
strub



----- Original Message -----
> From: Albert Lee <allee8285@gmail.com>
> To: dev@openjpa.apache.org; Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>
> Cc: 
> Sent: Monday, January 9, 2012 6:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] release openjpa-2.2.0?
> 
> Mark,
> 
> Will it be fair to assume the following:
> - Since your interest is to get 2.2.0 release out asap, you will be start
> doing the 2.2.0 release work sometime this week.
> - Once the release is complete we will assume the ownership of this
> release, for service maintenance.
> 
> Thanks,
> Albert Lee.
> 
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de> wrote:
> 
>>  Hi Albert!
>>  I have no special interrest in maintaining this branch longer as needed.
>>  I'm just a user like anyone else.
>> 
>>  The main reason for pushing this release is that the last OpenJPA release
>>  was pretty long time ago and trunk already contains quite a few important
>>  improvements.
>> 
>>  In OpenWebBeans and MyFaces we usually only create a new maintenance
>>  branch if there were big new features to be incorporated in trunk. If we
>>  know that we like to do a new heavyweight feature, then we create a branch
>>  for 2.2.x and do the maintenance there. Otherwise we release from trunk
>>  because we don't like to do all the merging stuff if not really needed.
>> 
>>  But I'm fine with whatever branching behaviour the OpenJPA community is
>>  used to (just need to know it).
>> 
>> 
>>  LieGrue,
>>  strub
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  ----- Original Message -----
>>  > From: Albert Lee <allee8285@gmail.com>
>>  > To: dev@openjpa.apache.org
>>  > Cc:
>>  > Sent: Friday, January 6, 2012 6:41 PM
>>  > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] release openjpa-2.2.0?
>>  >
>>  > Mark,
>>  >
>>  > You are advocating a 2.2.x maintenance release. Per Kevin's note 
> on
>>  service
>>  > branch management, do you have a need to "own" that release 
> for your
>>  > product servicing need?
>>  >
>>  > We have the same service requirement based on trunk right now. If you
>>  need
>>  > owning the 2.2.1 service branch, we can create a separate 2.2.2 after
>>  2.2.1
>>  > is completed. Otherwise we can be the release owner of the 2.2.1 
> branch.
>>  >
>>  > Albert Lee.
>>  >
>>  > On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Kevin Sutter 
> <kwsutter@gmail.com>
>>  wrote:
>>  >
>>  >>  Hi Mark,
>>  >>  You're on the right track.  You can browse the OpenJPA svn 
> repository
>>  > to
>>  >>  see how we've done it in the past.  For example, each of our 
> major
>>  > releases
>>  >>  is always tagged:
>>  >>
>>  >>  https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openjpa/tags
>>  >>
>>  >>  And, corresponding to most of these releases is a service branch:
>>  >>
>>  >>  https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openjpa/branches
>>  >>
>>  >>  Mainline development continues on trunk.  So, once we cut the 
> 2.2.0
>>  >>  release, then trunk becomes 2.3.0-SNAPSHOT.  That is, trunk is 
> working
>>  >>  towards the next 2.3.0 release.
>>  >>
>>  >>  Each of the service branches has an owning manager.  That manager
>>  normally
>>  >>  creates and maintains that service branch.  Nothing goes into 
> that
>>  service
>>  >>  branch without the owning manager's signoff.
>>  >>
>>  >>  This approach allows multiple organizations to own their service
>>  branches,
>>  >>  if desired.  So, after the 2.2.0 release is complete, we normally
>>  create
>>  >>  the 2.2.x service branch.  But, if there is a reason for you to
>>  maintain a
>>  >>  2.2.0-mt service branch, there is nothing stopping you.  It's 
> quite
>>  >>  flexible.
>>  >>
>>  >>  At some point, there may be a determination to also create a 
> service
>>  >>  release off the branch.  For example, you'll notice that we 
> have
>>  > created a
>>  >>  2.1.1 release based off the 2.1.x service branch.
>>  >>
>>  >>  Make sense?  This is the approach we have used for several 
> releases and
>>  >>  it's been working for the OpenJPA development team.
>>  >>
>>  >>  Here are a few links that help describe our process:
>>  >>  http://openjpa.apache.org/release-management.html
>>  >>  http://openjpa.apache.org/openjpa-release-policy.html
>>  >>
>>  >>  Kevin
>>  >>
>>  >>  On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 6:01 AM, Mark Struberg 
> <struberg@yahoo.de>
>>  > wrote:
>>  >>
>>  >>  > To not let this slip.
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > What are the release plans in general? Do you like to start 
> with the
>>  > work
>>  >>  > on the new JPA spec soon (guess this might take another year 
> to get
>>  >>  > finished). I'd rather keep the trunk as main development 
> stage and
>>  > would
>>  >>  > like to work towards a 2.2.1 afterwards on trunk.
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > The reason why I ask this is for the branch we like to 
> create.
>>  > It's a
>>  >>  > difference if we just create a '2.2.0-mt' branch (mt 
> for
>>  > maintenance)
>>  >>  only
>>  >>  > for getting 2.2.0 out of the door, and continue our main 
> development
>>  >>  effort
>>  >>  > on trunk. Or if we create a '2.2.x' branch and do 
> the most
>>  > work there
>>  >>  (and
>>  >>  > need to merge all work over to trunk).
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > I'm +1 for 2.2.0-mt
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > If noone objects then I like to start this new branch middle 
> of next
>>  >>  week.
>>  >>  > What work needs to be done until then? My gut feeling says:
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > * review open JIRAs
>>  >>  >   * verify and resolve the ones already fixed
>>  >>  >   * update the fix-version to 2.2.1 for the others
>>  >>  > * run the TCK
>>  >>  > * verify/update the documentation of new features.
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > This reminds me that our pdf doesn't contain good 
> information for
>>  > the new
>>  >>  > openjpa-maven-plugin. I was also not able to find where we 
> deploy the
>>  >>  > plugin documentation to. This is imo something we should 
> review/fix
>>  >>  before
>>  >>  > we branch.
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > feel free to add missing tasks.
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > LieGrue,
>>  >>  > strub
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > ----- Original Message -----
>>  >>  > > From: Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>
>>  >>  > > To: "dev@openjpa.apache.org"
>>  > <dev@openjpa.apache.org>
>>  >>  > > Cc:
>>  >>  > > Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 8:11 PM
>>  >>  > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] release openjpa-2.2.0?
>>  >>  > >
>>  >>  > > I'd just branch the trunk and remove JEST later. Or 
> just keep
>>  > it and
>>  >>  > mark it
>>  >>  > > as 'experimental' - doesn't hurt!
>>  >>  > >
>>  >>  > > LieGrue,
>>  >>  > > strub
>>  >>  > >
>>  >>  > >
>>  >>  > >
>>  >>  > > ----- Original Message -----
>>  >>  > >>  From: Kevin Sutter <kwsutter@gmail.com>
>>  >>  > >>  To: dev@openjpa.apache.org; Donald Woods
>>  > <dwoods@apache.org>
>>  >>  > >>  Cc:
>>  >>  > >>  Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 7:41 PM
>>  >>  > >>  Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] release openjpa-2.2.0?
>>  >>  > >>
>>  >>  > >>  Donald,
>>  >>  > >>
>>  >>  > >>>   I would suggest someone verifying a clean TCK 
> run
>>  > before we branch.
>>  >>  > >>>
>>  >>  > >>
>>  >>  > >>  Excellent idea.  We used to have someone from the 
> Apache
>>  > community do
>>  >>  > this
>>  >>  > >>  for us since not everybody has access to the TCK.  
> Is there
>>  > someone
>>  >>  > that
>>  >>  > >>  can step up to do this?
>>  >>  > >>
>>  >>  > >>
>>  >>  > >>>
>>  >>  > >>>   Also, are there any samples or experimental 
> code that
>>  > needs to be
>>  >>  > > removed
>>  >>  > >>>   or cleaned up before we create a 2.2.0 
> release?
>>  >>  > >>>
>>  >>  > >>
>>  >>  > >>  Since you brought this up...  I'm think we 
> need to
>>  > re-think the JEST
>>  >>  > > module
>>  >>  > >>  that is currently in trunk.  Pinaki originally put 
> it into
>>  > trunk with
>>  >>  > the
>>  >>  > >>  hopes of solidifying it before we do another 
> release.  I
>>  > don't think
>>  >>  > > that
>>  >>  > >>  effort has transpired.  Since it's a separate 
> module,
>>  > maybe it can be
>>  >>  > >>  pulled before creating the 2.2.0 release and 2.2.x 
> service
>>  > stream and
>>  >>  > then
>>  >>  > >>  put back into trunk?  Other ideas?
>>  >>  > >>
>>  >>  > >>  Kevin
>>  >>  > >>
>>  >>  > >>
>>  >>  > >>>
>>  >>  > >>>   -Donald
>>  >>  > >>>
>>  >>  > >>>
>>  >>  > >>>
>>  >>  > >>>   ________________________________
>>  >>  > >>>    From: Mark Struberg 
> <struberg@yahoo.de>
>>  >>  > >>>   To: openjpa-dev 
> <dev@openjpa.apache.org>
>>  >>  > >>>   Cc: David Blevins 
> <david.blevins@gmail.com>
>>  >>  > >>>   Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 12:11 PM
>>  >>  > >>>   Subject: [DISCUSS] release openjpa-2.2.0?
>>  >>  > >>>
>>  >>  > >>>   Hi folks!
>>  >>  > >>>
>>  >>  > >>>   I've now used openjpa-2.2.0 excessively 
> and it
>>  > looks very good to
>>  >>  > > me.
>>  >>  > >>>   What do you think about going forward and 
> shipping a
>>  > 2.2.0?
>>  >>  > >>>   Or at least a RC1...
>>  >>  > >>>
>>  >>  > >>>   OpenEJB and Geronimo are waiting for an 
> openjpa-2.2.x
>>  > release as
>>  >>  well
>>  >>  > > ;)
>>  >>  > >>>
>>  >>  > >>>   LieGrue,
>>  >>  > >>>   strub
>>  >>  > >>>
>>  >>  > >>
>>  >>  > >
>>  >>  >
>>  >>
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > --
>>  > Albert Lee.
>>  >
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Albert Lee.
> 

Mime
View raw message