Mark, You can branch from trunk to branches/2.2.x and eventually to tags/2.2.0.
Per Donald and Kevin's suggestions, we can work on branches/2.2.x to: - Clean up experimental code - Remove Jest module, if needed. I believe we only need to remove module and dependency definitions in 2 pom.xml and leave the openjpa-jest module intact for future work. - Other works. Thanks, Albert Lee. On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: > that's perfectly fine. Thus I will start creating the branch in +4h if no > one objects? > > What should the branch name be? > > > "2.2.x" is d'accord with your naming conventions? > > > txs and LieGrue, > strub > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Albert Lee <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected]; Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > > Cc: > > Sent: Monday, January 9, 2012 6:04 PM > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] release openjpa-2.2.0? > > > > Mark, > > > > Will it be fair to assume the following: > > - Since your interest is to get 2.2.0 release out asap, you will be start > > doing the 2.2.0 release work sometime this week. > > - Once the release is complete we will assume the ownership of this > > release, for service maintenance. > > > > Thanks, > > Albert Lee. > > > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hi Albert! > >> I have no special interrest in maintaining this branch longer as > needed. > >> I'm just a user like anyone else. > >> > >> The main reason for pushing this release is that the last OpenJPA > release > >> was pretty long time ago and trunk already contains quite a few > important > >> improvements. > >> > >> In OpenWebBeans and MyFaces we usually only create a new maintenance > >> branch if there were big new features to be incorporated in trunk. If > we > >> know that we like to do a new heavyweight feature, then we create a > branch > >> for 2.2.x and do the maintenance there. Otherwise we release from trunk > >> because we don't like to do all the merging stuff if not really needed. > >> > >> But I'm fine with whatever branching behaviour the OpenJPA community is > >> used to (just need to know it). > >> > >> > >> LieGrue, > >> strub > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> > From: Albert Lee <[email protected]> > >> > To: [email protected] > >> > Cc: > >> > Sent: Friday, January 6, 2012 6:41 PM > >> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] release openjpa-2.2.0? > >> > > >> > Mark, > >> > > >> > You are advocating a 2.2.x maintenance release. Per Kevin's note > > on > >> service > >> > branch management, do you have a need to "own" that release > > for your > >> > product servicing need? > >> > > >> > We have the same service requirement based on trunk right now. If you > >> need > >> > owning the 2.2.1 service branch, we can create a separate 2.2.2 after > >> 2.2.1 > >> > is completed. Otherwise we can be the release owner of the 2.2.1 > > branch. > >> > > >> > Albert Lee. > >> > > >> > On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Kevin Sutter > > <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Hi Mark, > >> >> You're on the right track. You can browse the OpenJPA svn > > repository > >> > to > >> >> see how we've done it in the past. For example, each of our > > major > >> > releases > >> >> is always tagged: > >> >> > >> >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openjpa/tags > >> >> > >> >> And, corresponding to most of these releases is a service branch: > >> >> > >> >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openjpa/branches > >> >> > >> >> Mainline development continues on trunk. So, once we cut the > > 2.2.0 > >> >> release, then trunk becomes 2.3.0-SNAPSHOT. That is, trunk is > > working > >> >> towards the next 2.3.0 release. > >> >> > >> >> Each of the service branches has an owning manager. That manager > >> normally > >> >> creates and maintains that service branch. Nothing goes into > > that > >> service > >> >> branch without the owning manager's signoff. > >> >> > >> >> This approach allows multiple organizations to own their service > >> branches, > >> >> if desired. So, after the 2.2.0 release is complete, we normally > >> create > >> >> the 2.2.x service branch. But, if there is a reason for you to > >> maintain a > >> >> 2.2.0-mt service branch, there is nothing stopping you. It's > > quite > >> >> flexible. > >> >> > >> >> At some point, there may be a determination to also create a > > service > >> >> release off the branch. For example, you'll notice that we > > have > >> > created a > >> >> 2.1.1 release based off the 2.1.x service branch. > >> >> > >> >> Make sense? This is the approach we have used for several > > releases and > >> >> it's been working for the OpenJPA development team. > >> >> > >> >> Here are a few links that help describe our process: > >> >> http://openjpa.apache.org/release-management.html > >> >> http://openjpa.apache.org/openjpa-release-policy.html > >> >> > >> >> Kevin > >> >> > >> >> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 6:01 AM, Mark Struberg > > <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > To not let this slip. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > What are the release plans in general? Do you like to start > > with the > >> > work > >> >> > on the new JPA spec soon (guess this might take another year > > to get > >> >> > finished). I'd rather keep the trunk as main development > > stage and > >> > would > >> >> > like to work towards a 2.2.1 afterwards on trunk. > >> >> > > >> >> > The reason why I ask this is for the branch we like to > > create. > >> > It's a > >> >> > difference if we just create a '2.2.0-mt' branch (mt > > for > >> > maintenance) > >> >> only > >> >> > for getting 2.2.0 out of the door, and continue our main > > development > >> >> effort > >> >> > on trunk. Or if we create a '2.2.x' branch and do > > the most > >> > work there > >> >> (and > >> >> > need to merge all work over to trunk). > >> >> > > >> >> > I'm +1 for 2.2.0-mt > >> >> > > >> >> > If noone objects then I like to start this new branch middle > > of next > >> >> week. > >> >> > What work needs to be done until then? My gut feeling says: > >> >> > > >> >> > * review open JIRAs > >> >> > * verify and resolve the ones already fixed > >> >> > * update the fix-version to 2.2.1 for the others > >> >> > * run the TCK > >> >> > * verify/update the documentation of new features. > >> >> > > >> >> > This reminds me that our pdf doesn't contain good > > information for > >> > the new > >> >> > openjpa-maven-plugin. I was also not able to find where we > > deploy the > >> >> > plugin documentation to. This is imo something we should > > review/fix > >> >> before > >> >> > we branch. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > feel free to add missing tasks. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > LieGrue, > >> >> > strub > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > ----- Original Message ----- > >> >> > > From: Mark Struberg <[email protected]> > >> >> > > To: "[email protected]" > >> > <[email protected]> > >> >> > > Cc: > >> >> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 8:11 PM > >> >> > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] release openjpa-2.2.0? > >> >> > > > >> >> > > I'd just branch the trunk and remove JEST later. Or > > just keep > >> > it and > >> >> > mark it > >> >> > > as 'experimental' - doesn't hurt! > >> >> > > > >> >> > > LieGrue, > >> >> > > strub > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> >> > >> From: Kevin Sutter <[email protected]> > >> >> > >> To: [email protected]; Donald Woods > >> > <[email protected]> > >> >> > >> Cc: > >> >> > >> Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 7:41 PM > >> >> > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] release openjpa-2.2.0? > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> Donald, > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >>> I would suggest someone verifying a clean TCK > > run > >> > before we branch. > >> >> > >>> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> Excellent idea. We used to have someone from the > > Apache > >> > community do > >> >> > this > >> >> > >> for us since not everybody has access to the TCK. > > Is there > >> > someone > >> >> > that > >> >> > >> can step up to do this? > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >>> > >> >> > >>> Also, are there any samples or experimental > > code that > >> > needs to be > >> >> > > removed > >> >> > >>> or cleaned up before we create a 2.2.0 > > release? > >> >> > >>> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> Since you brought this up... I'm think we > > need to > >> > re-think the JEST > >> >> > > module > >> >> > >> that is currently in trunk. Pinaki originally put > > it into > >> > trunk with > >> >> > the > >> >> > >> hopes of solidifying it before we do another > > release. I > >> > don't think > >> >> > > that > >> >> > >> effort has transpired. Since it's a separate > > module, > >> > maybe it can be > >> >> > >> pulled before creating the 2.2.0 release and 2.2.x > > service > >> > stream and > >> >> > then > >> >> > >> put back into trunk? Other ideas? > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> Kevin > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >>> > >> >> > >>> -Donald > >> >> > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >> >> > >>> ________________________________ > >> >> > >>> From: Mark Struberg > > <[email protected]> > >> >> > >>> To: openjpa-dev > > <[email protected]> > >> >> > >>> Cc: David Blevins > > <[email protected]> > >> >> > >>> Sent: Wednesday, January 4, 2012 12:11 PM > >> >> > >>> Subject: [DISCUSS] release openjpa-2.2.0? > >> >> > >>> > >> >> > >>> Hi folks! > >> >> > >>> > >> >> > >>> I've now used openjpa-2.2.0 excessively > > and it > >> > looks very good to > >> >> > > me. > >> >> > >>> What do you think about going forward and > > shipping a > >> > 2.2.0? > >> >> > >>> Or at least a RC1... > >> >> > >>> > >> >> > >>> OpenEJB and Geronimo are waiting for an > > openjpa-2.2.x > >> > release as > >> >> well > >> >> > > ;) > >> >> > >>> > >> >> > >>> LieGrue, > >> >> > >>> strub > >> >> > >>> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Albert Lee. > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Albert Lee. > > > -- Albert Lee.
