Just my $0.02 I have no problems with 1. Posthumously creating a branch will happen from time to time.
I think that 2 can cause problems. It's not clear to me from the branch name where wlsmaintenance fits. Is it before or after 1.1.0? If I'm a new developer should I try to merge my patch from trunk to wlsmaintenance/1000mp1? Where it gets ugly is if the trend continued. Potentially creating branches for each consumer could cause a lot of confusion. -mike On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Patrick Linskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the approach taken so far. It's > definitely not the most ideal, but it seems to be a fair approach given the > situation (no branch was made at the time that WebLogic 10.0 shipped > initially, and now there are changes that need to be made against that > version). > > As discussed earlier, with the 1.1.x branch, which was driven by us > (WebLogic), we hope to minimize the changes made to the branch to important > bugfixes only, such that we can simply track that branch moving forward. I > expect that other organizations that push for a given release at a given > time to dovetail with their release trains will have similar desires. > > It seems like the only differences between the case at hand and that more > general sentiment are: > > 1. this branch was created post facto, rather than up-front > > 2. the name of the branch has vendor connotations > > Are your objections to issue 1 (i.e., the existence of a post-facto branch) > or issue 2 (a vendor name appearing in a branch)? > > -Patrick > > > On Jun 25, 2008, at 1:16 PM, Michael Dick wrote: > > I agree with Craig and Kevin. Vendor tags in the Apache SVN repository >> should be avoided. >> >> I'm also leery of adding another branch to maintain. Patrick alluded to >> potentially dangerous changes which went into the 1.0.x branch which >> caused >> some concern for BEA. I'm guessing that rev 547073 is a point in time >> before >> similar changes went in. >> >> If that's the motivation for creating a branch I'm not entirely opposed to >> it, but it should fit in with the rest of our naming conventions. I >> checked >> out rev 547073 and pom.xml lists the version as 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT. Any branch >> made at this point would be between 0.9.7 and 1.0.0. I'd suggest a name >> of >> 0.9.x for the new branch. The poms should be rolled back and so on - might >> have to do something to make OpenJPAVersion look correct to BEA customers >> though. >> >> Without looking at the differences between 547073 and 1.0.0 I can't say >> whether we really need this branch. I am not opposed to creating one but >> it >> should fit the naming conventions we've laid out. >> >> Regards, >> >> -mike >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >> I agree with Kevin that we should eschew vendor tags in the OpenJPA >>> repository. >>> >>> It should be sufficient to have maintenance folks know from which branch >>> a >>> maintenance release was cut (r547073, openjpa/trunk/ is really where you >>> shipped from??? After creating a 1.1.0 tag?). And we now have trunk, >>> 1.1.x, >>> and 1.0.x branches as active code lines. >>> >>> The only reason that I can think of to have a vendor tag is so you can do >>> vendor maintenance in it. And I don't think we want to do that. If you >>> need >>> to make patches for specific customers, it seems that a local repository >>> would be appropriate. And once the patch is verified to work, put the >>> update >>> into an Apache svn branch. >>> >>> What do others think? >>> >>> Craig >>> >>> >>> On Jun 23, 2008, at 2:36 PM, Kevin Sutter wrote: >>> >>> Wait a minute, Srinivasa. This doesn't seem right. I will admit that I >>> >>>> didn't see your original posting asking for guidance, but I really don't >>>> think we want WebLogic, WebSphere, Geronimo, or any other vendor's >>>> specific >>>> maintenance releases housed in the OpenJPA SVN repository. >>>> >>>> It looks like WebLogic shipped something between the 0.9.7-incubating >>>> and >>>> the official 1.0.0 release. Is there some reason why you couldn't just >>>> support your WebLogic customers using the 1.0.x service stream? It >>>> would >>>> seem that customers would appreciate using an official release (post >>>> incubation) instead of the the one WebLogic initially shipped. >>>> >>>> Do you need a complete branch? Or, are you just interested in tagging >>>> the >>>> branch so that you can easily find the start of your service stream? >>>> >>>> I think we need to do something different here. I don't like the >>>> approach >>>> that you used. >>>> >>>> Kevin >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 3:36 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Author: ssegu >>>> >>>>> Date: Mon Jun 23 13:36:41 2008 >>>>> New Revision: 670740 >>>>> >>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=670740&view=rev >>>>> Log: >>>>> Branched from revision that BEA WebLogic Server 10.0 MP1 was released >>>>> from(rev #547073). >>>>> >>>>> http://www.nabble.com/OpenJPA-branches-td16547180.html#a16547180 >>>>> >>>>> Added: >>>>> openjpa/branches/wls-maintenance/ >>>>> openjpa/branches/wls-maintenance/1000mp1/ >>>>> - copied from r547073, openjpa/trunk/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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! >>> >>> >>> > -- > Patrick Linskey > 202 669 5907 > >
