On Jul 9, 2007, at 10:07 AM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
to make a branch. Once the branch is cut, fixes would have to be made in both branch and trunk, so it's not a trivial decision.Actually, modern VCS systems allow changes to be merged from a branch back down to the mainline. In my experience, this is fairly straightforward assuming that the merges happen in a timely fashion, so I think that this is a fairly trivial decision.
Just remember that tools help but a person needs to actively make the decision as to which branch a fix is merged into, and then turn the crank. There are also test cases and regression testing considerations.
Trivial? I wouldn't say so. But I agree with the strategy.
In my experience, it's much better in general to make changes in one place and then do VCS operations to merge them back down to trunk.
I agree.
That said, I do look forward to the day when svn supports automatically keeping track of branching history.
Not sure what more svn should do for us here... Craig
-Patrick On 7/9/07, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:I think we need to first go through the list of JIRA issues for 0.9.8 and 1.0.0 and really think hard about whether they should be fixed or not. We also need a release manager (a person who will do what Marc and Mike did for 0.9.6 and 0.9.7). Maybe we should post the list of proposed deferred JIRA issues for discussion and then move them. I like the idea of defining both a 1.0.1 and 1.1.0 release target to which to defer issues. I think once there is consensus on the non-deferred issues and an identified JIRA owner for them, the release manager can propose when to make a branch. Once the branch is cut, fixes would have to be made in both branch and trunk, so it's not a trivial decision. Maybe a wiki with a table of JIRA issues and proposed target release and some justification (with author's name) would be useful. It's not too hard to set up but still might not be worth the effort. Craig On Jul 9, 2007, at 9:50 AM, Kevin Sutter wrote: >> >> What is remaining to get to a 1.0 release? Are there any things in >> particular that people think are important to work on? Maybe it's >> about time for us to create a branch for 1.0 finalization and >> hardening. > > > This probably depends on what our goal is for a 1.0 release. If > it's just > to have a 1.0 release since we graduated to a TLP, then we're > probably close > to starting that process. But, if we are looking for a certain > level and > hardness of function, then we still may have a fews things to clean > up. I'm > okay with going for a 1.0 release just to have one, but I would > then like to > start working on defining the follow-on release (1.0.1 or 1.1). > > No matter what type of 1.0 release we decide to go for, maybe we > should > incorporate the voting mechanism within JIRA to help determine what > Issues > are important? I am not totally familiar with this process, but it > allows > users to vote on the Issues that are most important to them. Each > user is> allowed a certain number of votes (to keep them from voting for "all"> Issues). We can use that as input to our selection criteria. > > But, before we open up for a vote, do we need some time to review > all of the > open Issues and assert 1.0 vs post-1.0? Something along the lines > of what > Patrick did for the previous release? I just find it kind of > difficult to > be working on various problems and then "ding", the timer goes off > and we've> cut off development for a given release. It's probably time to start> working out a candidate release cycle and content. > > Kevin Craig RussellArchitect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/ jdo408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!-- Patrick Linskey 202 669 5907
Craig Russell Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
