On 8/20/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > We will create a "1.0.0" branch as per the existing release process > at http://openjpa.apache.org/releasing-openjpa.html , so that if > anyone objects to the release for technical reasons (e.g., misplaces > license file), we can make those repairs in the "1.0.0" branch and > then re-cut the release without worrying about other changes that may > have been slipped into the trunk.
Whether or not we have a parent "1.0" branch to the "1.0.0" branch is > not something I have considered. Does anyone have any thoughts about > this? If so, we'll need to make it clear to people what work should > go into the "1.0" branch and what work should go into the trunk. > Since we don't have much of a long-term roadmap yet, it might make > sense to wait until we know which major features will go into OpenJPA > 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, etc. However, I don't have strong objections to making > a "1.0" branch. > > Thoughts? I'd prefer to wait until we have a roadmap in place. If we create a parent branch then we'll end up doing a lot of dual maintenance with trunk and 1.0. If/when we need to add new function which breaks backwards compatibility then we can create a branch for 1.x and go forward with 2.0.0 in trunk. The plan can change when we have a roadmap in place or have targetted JIRA issues for 1.1 vs 2.0.0. While creating the 1.0 parent branch is probably cleaner schematically I don't see a practical benefit unless there are changes coming that warrant a major release. Until we get to that point I'm content to play it by ear a bit. That's just MHO though. -Mike On Aug 20, 2007, at 6:20 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote: > > > Well, I definitely don't think that work should happen in a branch > > called 1.0.0. Rather, it would seem that we would want to create a > > branch called 1.0, and tag from it. > > > > I think that we should make a 1.0 branch tonight, and then all future > > work in the 1.0 line will happen in it. So, if something goes wrong > > while building / voting on the release, we'll resolve those issues in > > the 1.0 branch, not in trunk. That way, people can keep on working on > > trunk, which will immediately become the 1.1 train. > > > > -Patrick > > > > On 8/20/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Patrick- > >> > >> I expect that we'll keep the "1.0.0" branch around, and then make a > >> "1.0.0" tag once the release is cut and approved. > >> > >> What happens with the "1.0.0" branch (i.e., if 1.0.1 work takes place > >> in the 1.0.0 branch or in trunk) is, I believe, a topic that has yet > >> to be discussed. > >> > >> > >> On Aug 20, 2007, at 1:42 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I think that we should be making a permanent 1.0 branch, and then > >>> tag > >>> off of it, so that we have somewhere to work on 1.0.1. Or do things > >>> work differently in svn? > >>> > >>> -Patrick > >>> > >>> On 8/20/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> OpenJPA Developers- > >>>> > >>>> Pursuant to the vote at http://www.nabble.com/-DISCUSS--set-a- > >>>> deadline-for-1.0.0-features-t4233167.html , a branch for OpenJPA > >>>> 1.0.0 will be created tonight at 11:59 PM EST, and a release > >>>> candidate will be immediately created for voting on the final 1.0.0 > >>>> release. > >>>> > >>>> If anyone needs more time for essential bugfixes, now is the > >>>> time to > >>>> speak up. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Marc Prud'hommeaux > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Patrick Linskey > >>> 202 669 5907 > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Patrick Linskey > > 202 669 5907 > >
