-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Mark,
On 2/18/19 05:03, Mark Thomas wrote: > On 18/02/2019 09:13, Rémy Maucherat wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 4:09 PM Michael Osipov >> <micha...@apache.org> wrote: >> >>> Folks, >>> >>> given that we are currently in the process of migrating to Git >>> I'd like to propose a more readible and with the branch names >>> consistent tag naming scheme. >>> >>> The given approach, for whatsoever reason, performs an >>> uppercase and replaces dots with underscores. This reduces >>> readability, but also requires people (esp. package >>> maintainers) to perform sed(1) magic to convert back and >>> forth. >>> >>> There are bascially two approaches I'd like to discuss: >>> >>> Approch 1: It will reuse the branch name of the current major >>> version, excluding master. Thus, we will have the following >>> prefixes: tomcat90-, tomcat85-, and tomcat70-. Since JDBC Pool >>> remains in place and if it is released separately the prefix >>> would be jdbc-pool-. The version itself would remain as-is and >>> simply appended, e.g., 8.5.40, 9.0.25, etc. >>> >>> Finally it would be tomcat85-8.5.40, tomcat90-9.0.25. Another >>> benefit would be autocompletion in Git CLI. I could simply say: >>> "git checkout tomcat85" or "git checkout tomcat85-<TAB>" and >>> grab the specific version I want. >>> >>> Approach 2: A simpler, less redundant approach would be naming >>> the branches master, 7.0.x, 8.5.x, etc. and get rid of the >>> "tomcat" prefix at all. The tags would simply be the versions >>> as-is: 8.5.40, 9.0.25, etc. The Git autocompletion will work >>> here too. >>> >>> I personally opt for approach 2 because it is consistent, >>> concise and removes redundancy on always used prefixes. >>> >> >> I guess it's hard to argue against option 2. >> >> The main downside is that it comes late and Mark already did the >> work and lots of testing for his proposed plan. > > The current, community agreed proposal for branch naming is > "master, tc8.5 and tc7.0" > > There were strong views on the branch naming but "master, 8.5.x > and 7.0.x" would be consistent with those views. I'm not sure I see > much difference between either approach. If there is a strong > preference for one over the other - or a good reason to choose one > over the other - please make those views known in the next few > days. > > > The current proposal, community agreed proposal for tags is to > continue with the current naming scheme. Switching to using the > version as-is (9.0.1, 9.0.2, etc) is doable. It is just a little > more work during the migration. If the as-is naming scheme makes it > easier for downstream users then that strikes me as a good reason > to change it. Are there any objections to doing so? No objections, here. - -chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - https://www.enigmail.net/ iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEMmKgYcQvxMe7tcJcHPApP6U8pFgFAlxrC9sACgkQHPApP6U8 pFiQ7g/9FwNkmK6aIGRCKIzeinQid1+umxHdOgobludzhnZcIObJKF9oALquyCgB UivQfAU+Tcx1eoSwkKx7JDxq5MxkktfsKXzT9+L2eDfgMwyfaVjTtsq0Ia0Qmay6 OgDTspP95XZQlDoMhWNYS6zVqP/Yf4YIF6NxnA9ax+GGv6r4K6mED7oDbjHGXiq+ XqeFHibx0ynCai2L7S88UpIGiUWY70/l79+bZ3zOXfqmCRv4TotwuBoBh68RbYJB A1x4VMs22OfuM9LF7K2kzAjtaEA4XNVn7sC1tYuwpr6LUx7gwlB1xB70F5oYiQlI PhxYcSiFVnbiuROyU1cF1rOl6QuIQxhMYodABilEARrmoxk5vjG7f8ToOuUm0Wd1 yU02dt6B+rm3PHu5eFp5iRwHJiarYDFubO47Qwj0c+bkvn3R+u4XJ6CXMfV1j2SW u7HjAjILU9iSAsVEIaYj04Ksv8A+6v6Czg4m/f8KWy+KX8nb50wfjfUiXfjdRB8m saEOq03tjmlGfKipYPaNO3qUEP64S5EqJCyJj9acQ1ravd+8k1GteiUYuOWHFMzm bNSAcb6YqKsqB//hSFRlIgsVTrr9/mx2FzhCzp/9a3RLzIsvA81Bxg6BHcJ91/cV AVofdNE4X/WNsXoHDEx8FpgL/wCVbr3ODpt43SEv8f4XtsIrym0= =gZ8p -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
