David Blevins wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 2:18 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 12:22 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:48 AM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
-0.5 to copying branches/1.1 to branches/1.1.x and then copying
or moving to tags/1.1.x Since ONLY BUG FIXES can possibly be
added to branches/1.1, this should not cause problems. The
release manager gets say over what goes into a release, they
can revert changes they don't want in the release. I think the
copy to branches/1.1.x just adds steps for no gain.
I would upgrade this to a -1 on my part.
Think you're getting kind of nit-picky on what you think is
easiest for a release manager to do. I'd rather see us simply
agree on what the end result should be.
IMHO, if a release manager wants to copy into a temp location
while they finalize the release (which can take days) to remove
the risk of having to roll back accidental changes, that's fine.
Actually, now that i think about it there is one more reason other
than preference that I like making a branches/1.1.0 for release
finalization.
-- branches/1.1 will never have geronimo_version=1.1 and people
(including continuum) won't have fake 1.1 final jars in their repos.
Why do we need geronimo_version=1.1 in branches/1.1.0? Sorry, I'm
not following.
Let me add the the item below and see if it doesn't make more sense.
1. cp branches/1.1 to branches/1.1.0
2. in branches/1.1.0
2.1 geronimo_version=1.1-SNAPSHOT -> geronimo_version=1.1
2.2 update plugin version numbers
2.3 update any hard coded poms or plans from 1.1-SNAPSHOT to 1.1
3. in branches/1.1
3.1 geronimo_version=1.1-SNAPSHOT -> geronimo_version=1.1.1-SNAPSHOT
3.2 update plugin version numbers
3.3 update any hard coded poms or plans from 1.1-SNAPSHOT to
1.1.1-SNAPSHOT
4. eventually move branches/1.1.0 to tags/1.1.0 when release is
actually final
Make more sense?
Yeah, but you still haven't explained why we need both to exist
concurrently.
Takes at least a week from code freeze till shipping day.
Ok, I have two problems with this. First, I didn't come up with the
idea first. Second, it would actually mean that Aaron and I actually
have common ground on release procedures. :)
Sounds good to me so long as *ONLY* bugs go into that branch. Given
that, I wonder if we should go a four level version number:
major.minor.trivial.patch
Regards,
Alan
