Maybe I misunderstood your initial message but I thought you wanted to create 'branches/2.0' branch and not 'branches/2.0-M6' branch. Branching for M6 as usual sounds fine to me.
Jarek On 6/2/07, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Branching for a 2.0-M6 is a short lived process and basically what we've done over the past few months. I'll branch, fix up / clean up and andy patches there will be small and easily managed in two branches. This isn't intended to be a long lived maintenance problem. We've been there and done that and don't plan on returning. On Jun 1, 2007, at 11:29 PM, Jarek Gawor wrote: > One thing I would be in favor of is branching only when we are > actually ready for 2.0 final. Otherwise, we will have two trees to > commit our patches to and keep in synch. And that is always > problematic. > > Jarek > > On 6/1/07, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I like Kevan's suggestion. We ship the assemblies we normally build. >> >> >> On Jun 1, 2007, at 8:28 PM, Gianny Damour wrote: >> >> > On 01/06/2007, at 3:56 AM, David Jencks wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> On May 31, 2007, at 9:53 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: >> >> >> >>> There has been lots of work going on to get Geronimo 2.0 >> >>> certified and it seems like the light at the end of the tunnel is >> >>> not an oncoming train but the other side :) With that we're also >> >>> at the point of cutting a milestone since we're at the end of >> >>> May. Given that all possible assemblies won't be fully tested >> >>> what do folks think about the name of the release and what will >> >>> it contain? Also, when is a branch appropriate? >> >>> >> >>> I was thinking geronimo-tomcat-jee5-2.0-M6. This would include >> >>> Tomcat, CXF and OpenJPA as the components. The M6 indicates a >> >>> work in progress but allows us to claim a specific release as >> >>> certified and allows us to continue knocking off the corners for >> >>> performance, footprint, etc. >> >> >> >> Why not also a jetty assembly? Unless there are really >> >> significant problems I'd be in favor of waiting a couple days and >> >> getting both platforms out at the same time. >> > >> > I am also in favor of a simultaneous release of Jetty and Tomcat >> > assemblies. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Gianny >> > >> >> >> >>> >> >>> It would also seem about right to branch into branches/2.0 at >> >>> this time as we finish the other work. >> >>> >> >>> What do others think? >> >>> >> >> >> >> I have a significant security refactoring I've been working on >> >> that I would like to get into the next 2.0 official whatever >> >> (milestone, snapshot, release...) since it is not backwards >> >> compatible. It affects how default subjects and run-as subjects >> >> are constructed and will finish the JACC plugability work. I'll >> >> try to get something out today describing how it works in more >> >> detail. >> >> >> >> thanks >> >> david jencks >> >> >> >>> Matt >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >
