On May 12, 2008, at 8:05 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
On May 12, 2008, at 11:54 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
Joe Bohn wrote:
David Jencks wrote:
I may not be understanding the issues here..... if so please
point this out.
On May 12, 2008, at 9:00 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
The new release process [1] generally assumes that we are
releasing from trunk and always bumps the version number up by
one.
Those are not intended to be assumptions :-) Maybe bad writing.
Ah ... ok. The wiki mentioned that we should avoid the
complexity of releasing from branches in favor of releasing from
trunk. I took this too literally. IIUC the intent is that we
should not be creating a temporary branch just to later convert
it to a tag for a release.
However, for things like samples we want to keep version
numbers consistent with the Geronimo Server versions and as
such we would need to release from branches. So here are some
questions:
#1 Can we follow the new release process from a branch
(geronimo/samples/branches/2.1) rather than trunk? I think
this should work. Anybody know of any issues?
I'm pretty sure this should work fine, I did something very
similar with activemq 4.1.2
Ok, I'll give that a shot.
#2 Releasing from branches/2.1 would result in the versions in
the branch being updated to 2.2-SNAPSHOT and a tag/2.1 release
(I think). However, we want the branch to live on as a 2.1.*
branch ... so I assume that I could just manually update the
versions to 2.1.1-SNAPSHOT from 2.2-SNAPSHOT. Likewise, I
would rename the tag from tags/2.1 to tags/2.1.0. Does anybody
see a problem with this (see #3 for another idea)? After the
initial jump from the 2 digit version to the 3 digit version
things should work normally for future releases.
I like what activemq does more and more. With numbers
transposed to match our versions, they keep the branch in
branches/2.1, the branch version at 2.1-SNAPSHOT, and release
2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, ... from this branch. You just need to
fill in the 2.1.x release version and 2.1-SNAPSHOT branch
version when you run mvn release:prepare. Even if we dont keep
the version at 2.1-SNAPSHOT but update it to 2.1.(x+1)-SNAPSHOT
I think the branch name in svn should continue to be branches/2.1
This is the same process that we followed with 2.1. I'll dig
into the details of specifying the releases rather than allowing
the defaults that bump up the version number of the release by 1.
#3 The previous question makes me wonder if we should be
following consistent 2 or 3 digit version numbers for projects
which should eliminate the need for the renames. Should
Geronimo 2.1 (and hence Geronimo Samples for 2.1) have been
versioned 2.1.0 rather than 2.1. It seems that is the version
number we adopted for the server tag which is called tags/
2.1.0. It would make it possible to use the maven-release
plugin for major versions as well as minor versions. The
branch would still be branches/2.1 but the version for the poms
would be 2.1.x-SNAPSHOT as we currently do for server branches/
2.1. Thoughts? If we adopted this strategy we would also want
to revision server trunk from 2.2-SNAPSHOT to 2.2.0-SNAPSHOT.
I think anything we do that isn't from the release plugin should
be ignored as guidance. I think the release plugin creates tags
like <project-name>-<release-version> under tags. This is fine
IMNSHO.
Actually, I did think of one addition concern with our current
numbering and using the maven release plugin. If we only use 2
digit version numbers for major releases then we would end up with
tags/2.2 and branches/2.2. This may be a point of confusion when
looking at our svn repos (and I suspect the reason that we have
tags/2.1.0 rather than tags/2.1 right now). NOTE: I have not yet
looked into the how the version is specified with the maven-
release-plugin. Perhaps we can specify the release version and
the tag version independently in which case I could name the
appropriately via the plugin.
Wouldn't we end up with server/branches/2.2 and server/tags/
geronimo-parent-2.2? These seem sufficiently distinct to me to
avoid confusion.
hmmm .... now I'm confused. What is server/tags/geronimo-parent and
why would it replace server/tags/2.2?
The release plugin generates tags named like <project-name>-<release-
version>. I might have the geronimo-parent name wrong.
Actually, since this is really a discussion about samples, how would
we not end up with samples/branches/2.1 and samples/tags/2.1 (where
the branches continually used for 2.1.x releases and tags is the 2.1
release) if there is not a way to specify the artifact release
version independently from the tag release version? What am I
missing?
I suspect the naming issue is why we named the tag sever/tags/2.1.0
when we released Geronimo 2.1 so that the tag would have a different
version number from the branch that was to continue, server/branches/
2.1.
I suspect that it was due to the process used instead of the release
plugin, which IIUC involved making a release branch and then moving it
to tags. Such a branch needs a different name than what it is copied
from. If we were to use the release plugin this would be unnecessary.
thanks
david jencks
Joe
thanks
david jencks
I wasn't proposing anything that wasn't included in the release
plugin with #3 (I was actually proposing that with #2 ... but
specifying the releases should eliminate the need for that). The
only advantage to doing 3 digit versions consistently would be
that we could use the defaults from the release plugin rather
than having to specify the versions.
At the moment I'd prefer that our releases be numbered 2.2,
2.2.1, 2.2.2,... rather than 2.2.0, 2.2.1, ... I don't
understand what renames you are proposing or why they would be
needed.
I wonder if we could remove the old release instructions from
the wiki?
I think we should keep the old instructions for a little while
longer (esp. for releasing the Geronimo Server). I added a third
section that highlights the steps I did as a mixture of the new
and the old process .. but I think it still alludes to the old
process at the moment. I'll try to get that updated more clearly
and remove the old process when it is complete.
thanks
david jencks
[1] http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/geronimo-release-
process.html
Joe
