I think I agree with all you said there - except it doesn't explain why we've got 3 branches for 0.5 -
0.5-release 0.5.x-dev 0.5-fix And of course I can't tell fro svn what relationship (if any) these branches have to each other. Andrew On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 22:28 +0000, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > Oh, and I forgot to add that I think Tag names should just be the direct > version number, e.g. simply M4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.6.1 etc > > Robbie > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Robbie Gemmell [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: 06 January 2010 22:22 > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: Tagging our releases > > > > As far as I understand, the rationale for creating the 0.X-release > > branch is just so that trunk can be unfrozen and any blockers committed > > back to the branch. When releases drag on like M4 and 0.5 did it is > > quite annoying having trunk frozen. > > > > We could as easily use the same temporary branch name for all such > > release scenarios, or create new ones for each release and then delete > > it when we are done with the release, as the eventual release Tag would > > serve as marker enough after that point. Alternatively, create a 0.X.x > > branch as the first 0.X release is completed and then leave it in place > > for any future micro revisions. > > > > Robbie > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Andrew Stitcher [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: 06 January 2010 22:15 > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: RE: Tagging our releases > > > > > > On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 21:51 +0000, Robbie Gemmell wrote: > > > > Shall we retroactively create a 0.5 tag for future usage? Andrews > > > suggestion of looking at the .svnrevision file doesn't work for 0.5 > > as > > > it reports HEAD. > > > > > > Oh - I think retroactively creating the tag would be useful. > > > > > > Thinking a little about it -I think our 0.5 branch/tag naming is > > > broken: > > > > > > IMNSHO We should have a single 0.6 _branch_ and every release from it > > > should be tagged. Leading to something like: > > > > > > branches/0.6 > > > tags/0.6-release > > > tags/0.6.1-release > > > etc. > > > > > > The only work that should happen on the 0.6 branch would be related > > to > > > a > > > later release of the 0.6 line so I can't see the point of a 0.6- > > release > > > branch (but I created it following the example from 0.5). > > > > > > So now I'm a bit stuck for tag names! I don't want to duplicate the > > > branch name as it will confuse things. > > > > > > Suggestions? > > > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I just noticed from the users list why Rajith wanted to know the > > > revision, and he understandably got the wrong revision from looking > > at > > > the 0.5-release branch. It doesn't change the outcome discussed as no > > > code was changed, but the noted rev 779632 was actually an error on > > my > > > part after 0.5 was produced (due to a partially-switched SVN > > checkout) > > > and 0.5 was released at rev 775777 as far as I can tell. > > > > > > > > Robbie > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Andrew Stitcher [mailto:[email protected]] > > > > > Sent: 06 January 2010 21:26 > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > Subject: Re: Tagging our releases > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 15:29 -0500, Rajith Attapattu wrote: > > > > > > I was just trying to quickly figure out the svn rev the Java > > 0.5 > > > > > > release and found that there wasn't a tag available for it. > > > > > > (please note we do have a branch for it, but I still think we > > > should > > > > > > be tagging the final release). > > > > > > It seems we have tags for the previous releases (all though > > some > > > > > > aren't explicitly named). > > > > > > > > > > > > I thinks its good practise to tag releases. Some of the > > previous > > > > > > releases even had tags for RC's as well. > > > > > > So lets make sure we tag the final release for 0.6 > > > > > > > > > > I fully intend to tag the 0.6 release when I make it. > > > > > > > > > > However note that you can find a releases svn revision by looking > > > in > > > > > the > > > > > *.svnrevision file in the distribution directory - obviously this > > > is > > > > > not > > > > > massively convenient. > > > > > > > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > -- > > > > > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > > > > > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > > > > > Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > > > > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > > > > Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > > > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > > > Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation > Project: http://qpid.apache.org > Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected]
