On Aug 24, 2007, at 1:11 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
"1.0.0". As we discussed before, we don't have a "1.0" branch
because
we have not yet discussed a "1.0" roadmap.
Let's put this bit to rest. I have been assuming per email
discussions
from last year and general best practices that we will have patch
releases that contain nothing but bugfixes. Given that, the 1.0.x
roadmap is by definition constrained to patches. A roadmap for 1.1
would be useful, but is totally separate from any need for a 1.0.x
branch.
OK, that makes sense. I merely bring it up to point out that the
scope of my branching activity was only ever designed to cover the
current 1.0.0 release.
The current "1.0.0" branch is *only* for changes that are to go
into
the 1.0.0 release. Full stop.
... and I think that this is unnecessary. I do not believe that the
concepts that you discussed are at all orthogonal to general 1.0.x
maintenance. It is just a pathological special case in which
there has
not yet been a 1.0.0 release, but is otherwise identical to the
requirements for a 1.0.1 release or a 1.0.2 release.
The issue of whether to have a short-term release-specific branch is,
in fact, completely orthogonal to the issue of having long-term
branches with release-targeted bugfixes and features.
Nor is it pathological or in any way specific to OpenJPA version
1.0.0. One of the numerous reasons why we should have a release-
specific branch is that we need a place where we commit the non "-
SNAPSHOT" version number to the pom.xmls. If we were to do this on
the trunk or on a long-term branch, then TeamCity or Continuum or
some other CI system that is running off those branches will create
release artifacts with the final "1.0.0" release number, a situation
we want to avoid. This is one of the issues we discussed when Craig
suggested this release branch strategy back in November (see http://
mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openjpa-dev/200611.mbox/%
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ).
It sounds like there is an *orthogonal* concern that we do not yet
have a branch on which changes destined for 1.0.x should go. That's
an understandable concern, but it has nothing to do with the very
specific and short-lived purpose of the branch that is called
"1.0.0".
I think that having a branch for this specific and short-lived
purpose
is a Bad Idea. I see no reason why we should not just create a
branch
for a release as described in my last two emails, rather than
creating
a branch, throwing it away, and hopefully properly re-creating a
branch with the same contents.
It almost sounds like you think I am intending to manually re-create
the contents of the branch somewhere else, which isn't the case. I
just intend to merge the "1.0.0" branch contents into either "trunk"
to the potential "1.0" branch we've discussed. I simply don't
understand why you think this is a Bad Idea. Maybe if you posted some
concrete examples of the specific pitfalls you predict, then we would
be able to better understand your objections.
I'm perfectly fine with making a "1.0" branch on which we will
commit
changes destined for 1.0.x releases. Ideally, this would have been
done before we branched for "1.0.0", so that we could have branched
from the "1.0" branch, but I don't know if subversion actually
cares
about the hierarchy of branches when it comes to merging.
Indeed, I think that ideally, it should have been done *instead* of
creating the "1.0.0" branch.
So how about we do the following?
1. Immediately create a branch off of trunk called "1.0".
Maintenance
changes destined for 1.0.1 will be made on that branch.
2. Once the 1.0.0 release is approved and published, merge the
changes from the "1.0.0" branch into the "1.0" branch and tag the
released bits in the "1.0.0" branch as "1.0.0", then delete the
"1.0.0" branch.
3. In the future, cut the "1.0.1" branch off of the "1.0" branch.
I think that we should do the following:
1. rename the "1.0.0" branch to "1.0". Maintenance changes destined
fro 1.0.1 will be made on that branch.
I will do this once the release is approved and published.
2. Once the 1.0.0 release is approved and published, create a 1.0.0
tag, and do not delete the 1.0 branch.
I will do that (probably before #1, since one or two things have been
already committed to the 1.0.0 branch after the latest artifact was
uploaded for voting).
3. In the future, do not cut a "1.0.1" branch at all. Instead, when
the time comes for 1.0.1 work, do it directly from the 1.0 branch
(which, per my assertion above, contains only bugfixes, and so does
not risk tainting the branch), and create a tag from the branch.
I think that this simplifies and streamlines the process, and loses
none of the current source-isolation that we have in our
transient-branch strategy.
The source isolation we lose is that if we have a "1.0" branch from
which we directly cut release 1.0.0, and during the release process
Developer A commits a typo fix to LICENSE.txt they want in 1.0.0, and
Developer B fixes a semi-tested bugfix they don't want until 1.0.1,
then we don't have any way of differentiating or segregating those
different types of changes. Note that this is not just a hypothetical
concern: this actually was an issue in past releases on OpenJPA.
In conclusion, the crux of the disagreement seems simply to be: do we
want a transient release-specific branch or not. I think we do, for
the reasons listed above. You appear to deem it sufficient to have
only a long-lived parent branch from which we directly cut the
release. It's a fairly minor issue, but one I expect we will want to
discuss more and vote on before the the next release.
-Patrick
On 8/24/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think the point of having a release branch is so that:
1. Cosmetic/miscellaneous changes can be made in the release branch
to fix problems with the candidate builds.
2. More importantly, other people can make changes on one of the
parent branch(es) during the sometimes multi-week release voting
process without messing up the release branch.
The current "1.0.0" branch is *only* for changes that are to go
into
the 1.0.0 release. Full stop.
It sounds like there is an *orthogonal* concern that we do not yet
have a branch on which changes destined for 1.0.x should go. That's
an understandable concern, but it has nothing to do with the very
specific and short-lived purpose of the branch that is called
"1.0.0". As we discussed before, we don't have a "1.0" branch
because
we have not yet discussed a "1.0" roadmap.
I'm perfectly fine with making a "1.0" branch on which we will
commit
changes destined for 1.0.x releases. Ideally, this would have been
done before we branched for "1.0.0", so that we could have branched
from the "1.0" branch, but I don't know if subversion actually
cares
about the hierarchy of branches when it comes to merging.
So how about we do the following?
1. Immediately create a branch off of trunk called "1.0".
Maintenance
changes destined for 1.0.1 will be made on that branch.
2. Once the 1.0.0 release is approved and published, merge the
changes from the "1.0.0" branch into the "1.0" branch and tag the
released bits in the "1.0.0" branch as "1.0.0", then delete the
"1.0.0" branch.
3. In the future, cut the "1.0.1" branch off of the "1.0" branch.
On Aug 24, 2007, at 12:23 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
It seems like we should be able to accomplish that by renaming
the
1.0.0branch to
1.0. When we're done with 1.0.0 we can create a new branch and
tag
with the
correct name.
I agree completely.
I think that making the branch and then throwing it away and then
creating another branch with allegedly-identical contents sounds
error
prone and cumbersome.
As I mentioned earlier, I think that we should change our
processes to
create a release branch for an x.y.0 release from wherever it is
that
that branch is being sourced (trunk, somewhere else, etc.), and
then
work on a release on that branch. Once the release is done, we
then
tag that moment in time, but keep the x.y release branch alive for
work that should go into x.y.1. When the time comes for the x.y.1
release, we then do not need to create one of these release
branches,
since the only work that's happening in the x.y branch should be
maintenance work anyways. We just work on the release in the
release
branch, get it done, and then tag it when it's ready.
I think that our current model of making these transient
branches is
well-suited for a single-branch methodology. That worked well
while we
were working towards a 1.0.0 release, since we never planned to
have
hardening releases off of 0.9.7, for example. But now that we're
moving past 1.0.0, I think that it's important to have a branching
strategy in place that supports patch line maintenance.
Thoughts?
-Patrick
On 8/24/07, Michael Dick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/24/07, Patrick Linskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree with most of what Marc is saying. However, I strongly
feel
that we need to change how we're doing our branching strategy.
In my
opinion, creating these throwaway branches unnecessarily
complicates
the process of making a maintenance branch for a given release.
+1. Marc (or any other release manager) shouldn't have to merge
changes back
into trunk.
Can someone explain to me where we are going to do 1.0.1 work in
the
current process?
Prior to our discussion in a different thread I thought that
1.0.1
work
would be done in the 1.0.0 branch that we're using now. Basically
when we're
done with 1.0.0 we would create a tag. Anything committed after
that point
would be part of 1.0.1 until we release it and create another
tag.
The new plan is to create a branch and call it 1.0. 1.0.0, 1.0.1,
1.0.2 etc
are branches off of 1.0 (I think).
It seems like we should be able to accomplish that by renaming
the
1.0.0branch to
1.0. When we're done with 1.0.0 we can create a new branch and
tag
with the
correct name.
-Mike
-Patrick
On 8/24/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Kevin-
Unless Patrick objects to the current (fourth) vote on the
1.0.0
artifact based on this commit, it won't make it into the 1.0.0
final
release bits.
Once 1.0.0 is released, I will tag the currently *released*
source
code in the 1.0.0 branch as "1.0.0", and then merge the
*latest*
source code in the 1.0.0 branch back into the trunk, so any
additions
to the 1.0.0 branch will certainly be merged back to the trunk
(although they will only be released in the 1.0.0 assembly
if we
happen to need to cut another release).
I will document this process on the revised release
instructions on
the wiki once I get around to assembling them. We are playing a
little fast and loose with last-minute changes in what should
probably be a more solemn process, but since this is the first
major
release as a TLP, I think we can make a few exceptions.
On Aug 24, 2007, at 8:37 AM, Kevin Sutter wrote:
Patrick and Marc,
Help me understand our process here. This commit is
similar to
the
one I
did the other evening. It was committed into the 1.0.0 branch
after the 4th
re-spin and [VOTE] was posted. So, does this require yet
another
respin?
If not, then what happens to these changes? The [VOTE] would
not
include
these changes. So, would these changes automatically become
part
of the
1.0.1 snapshot release?
Thanks,
Kevin
On 8/24/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Author: pcl
Date: Thu Aug 23 22:27:43 2007
New Revision: 569253
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=569253&view=rev
Log:
Minor logging / exception handling improvements
Modified:
openjpa/branches/1.0.0/openjpa-kernel/src/main/java/org/
apache/
openjpa/enhance/PCEnhancer.java
openjpa/branches/1.0.0/openjpa-kernel/src/main/resources/
org/
apache/openjpa/enhance/localizer.properties
Modified:
openjpa/branches/1.0.0/openjpa-kernel/src/main/java/org/
apache/
openjpa/enhance/PCEnhancer.java
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openjpa/branches/1.0.0/openjpa-
kernel/
src/main/java/org/apache/openjpa/enhance/PCEnhancer.java?
rev=569253&r1=569252&r2=569253&view=diff
=============================================================
==
==
====
=========
---
openjpa/branches/1.0.0/openjpa-kernel/src/main/java/org/
apache/
openjpa/enhance/PCEnhancer.java
(original)
+++
openjpa/branches/1.0.0/openjpa-kernel/src/main/java/org/
apache/
openjpa/enhance/PCEnhancer.java
Thu Aug 23 22:27:43 2007
@@ -467,7 +467,8 @@
} catch (OpenJPAException ke) {
throw ke;
} catch (Exception e) {
- throw new GeneralException(e);
+ throw new GeneralException(_loc.get("enhance-
error",
+ _managedType.getType().getName(),
e.getMessage
()), e);
}
}
@@ -2736,7 +2737,10 @@
} catch (Throwable t) {
// last-chance catch for bug #283 (which can
happen
// in a variety of ClassLoading
environments)
- _log.warn(_loc.get("enhance-uid-access",
_meta), t);
+ if (_log.isTraceEnabled())
+ _log.warn(_loc.get("enhance-uid-access",
_meta), t);
+ else
+ _log.warn(_loc.get("enhance-uid-access",
_meta));
}
// if we couldn't access the
serialVersionUID, we
will have
to
@@ -3672,10 +3676,13 @@
* attribute name for the backing field <code>name</
code>.
*/
private String fromBackingFieldName(String name) {
- if (_meta.getAccessType() ==
ClassMetaData.ACCESS_PROPERTY
+ // meta is null when doing persistence-aware
enhancement
+ if (_meta != null
+ && _meta.getAccessType() ==
ClassMetaData.ACCESS_PROPERTY
&& _fieldsToAttrs.containsKey(name))
- name = (String) _fieldsToAttrs.get(name);
- return name;
+ return (String) _fieldsToAttrs.get(name);
+ else
+ return name;
}
/**
Modified:
openjpa/branches/1.0.0/openjpa-kernel/src/main/resources/org/
apache/openjpa/enhance/localizer.properties
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openjpa/branches/1.0.0/openjpa-
kernel/
src/main/resources/org/apache/openjpa/enhance/
localizer.properties?
rev=569253&r1=569252&r2=569253&view=diff
=============================================================
==
==
====
=========
---
openjpa/branches/1.0.0/openjpa-kernel/src/main/resources/org/
apache/openjpa/enhance/localizer.properties
(original)
+++
openjpa/branches/1.0.0/openjpa-kernel/src/main/resources/org/
apache/openjpa/enhance/localizer.properties
Thu Aug 23 22:27:43 2007
@@ -197,4 +197,5 @@
no-accessor: Could not find method called {0} in type {1}.
unspecified-unenhanced-types: One or more of the types in {0}
have
relations \
to other unenhanced types that were not specified. These
unspecified
types \
- are: {1}
\ No newline at end of file
+ are: {1}
+enhance-error: An error occurred while enhancing {0}.
Exception
message:
{1}
\ No newline at end of file
--
Patrick Linskey
202 669 5907
--
Patrick Linskey
202 669 5907
--
Patrick Linskey
202 669 5907
