Re: [Trinidad] Create a 1.2 trunk

[Jeanne Waldman]

I agree with Matthias in that I don't think we should have two trunks. Committing bug fixes to each is more hassle for more than one person, is something people that commit bug fixes will need to remember and will very easily get out of sync. It's easier for one person to merge in trunk's bug fixes with a branch. I'd prefer making 1.2 being the 'main trunk', since that is what my team uses. Can we consider that at this time? Are there more people interested in 1.2 than 1.1? Thanks, Jeanne Matthias Wessendorf wrote: On 10/24/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 10/24/07, Andrew Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: IMO, the 1.1 would still act as the main trunk for new features that are not 1.2 specific. It would then be a choice of each committer to patch 1.2 trunk or not (is the "or not" an option or not though -- should we require it so that the maintainers don't have to do all the svn merging?). Personally I prefer 1.1 OR 1.2 being the "main trunk". Should say "I don't prefer... " Meaning I don't care if 1.1 is main or 1.2. Both should be maintained in the same way. I am working inside a JSF 1.2 environment (like you ;-) ), My main concern is that these "trunks" have a separate live. I personally think, that the committers should "port" the patches (created or provided via contributors) to the other trunk as well. Some just can't use 1.2 or 1.1 so, would be odd if a bug is only fixed in one. Only if the feature is 1.2 specific would it be placed only on the 1.2 trunk. that's for sure. This could work like: 1) work on 1.1 and optionally port to 1.2 I think working on 1.2 and port optionally to 1.1 doesn't make a difference. Just the other way around. 2) apply 1.2 changes only to 1.2 +1 3) on release, branch 1.1 and 1.2 at the same time and provide same releases at same time: 1.0.4 && 1.2.4 1.0.5 && 1.2.5 ... 4) apply 1.1 changes from the 1.1 branch (merge) to 1.2? (unless we require committers to maintain their change on both trunks) I'd love to see this "restriction" :) opinions? On 10/24/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I like the idea of have two trunks. My only concern is that, these two live different lifes :) I can see that some only maintain 1.2x and some only 1.0x Perhaps setting a "committer" rule, to port patch to other branch, WHEN ! these patches aren't specific to a particular version (like JSF 1.2 - API) wdyt ? On 10/24/07, Andrew Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This has been brought up in the past (1.2 trunk), but it is again a hot topic here at oracle for applying trinidad patches. Currently we have in SVN: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad/trunk/trinidad https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad/branches/1.2.x-branch The problem with this structure is that there is a window between a trunk release and a branch release where there is no place for development on the 1.2 branch. Take now for example: 1.0.3 (Released) 1.0.4-SNAPSHOT (Trunk - dev) 1.2.3-SNAPSHOT (branch - pre-release) There is no 1.2.4 area for people that are making 1.0.4 changes to apply to the 1.2 branch. Would ppl. be in support of an SVN re-architecture for the following general structure? https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad/trunk/jsf-1.1/ (snapshot version) https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad/trunk/jsf-1.2/ (snapshot version) https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad/branches/jsf-1.1/1.0.4 (created for pre-release) https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad/branches/jsf-1.2/1.2.4 (created for pre-release) The build/api/impl folders could be directly below these folders. Example: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad/trunk/jsf-1.2/trinidad-build Opinions? -Andrew -- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org -- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org