On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Ram has definitely being doing most if not all the RM work for this > release, so +1 for Ram as Release Manager for 1.4 > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 5:10 AM, Ramkumar R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > > > I am happy take up the responsibility as a release manager for 1.4, also > > happy to help Luciano if he likes to take up the responsibility and take > > this forward. > > > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 6:28 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Ramkumar R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >>> > >>> I have been constantly working on the 1.x branch and noticed that > changes > >>> have been going into 1.x branch apart from the JIRA's that I raised for > >>> clean-up. > >>> > >>> Agree with Simon, if we don't need 1.4 branch then the work on 1.x need > >>> to stop at some point of time for the release to happen. > >>> > >>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Simon Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:02 AM, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:25 AM, Simon Laws < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Luciano Resende < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Looks like the 1.4 branch was already created [1], so I'm just > trying > >>>>>>> to avoid having to use it and continue working on 1.x branch. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [1] > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tuscany/branches/sca-java-1.4/ > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Raymond Feng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > +1 to use 1.x branch for 1.x releases. I don't see a need to > create > >>>>>>> > 1.4 > >>>>>>> > branch. > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > Thanks, > >>>>>>> > Raymond > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > -------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>>> > From: "Luciano Resende" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>>>> > Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 11:19 AM > >>>>>>> > To: <[email protected]> > >>>>>>> > Subject: 1.x branch versus 1.4 branch > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> >> I think we have successfully used the 1.x branch to stabilize > the > >>>>>>> >> code > >>>>>>> >> and prepare for the 1.4 release. > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> Are we seeing any changes in the 1.x branch that might cause it > to > >>>>>>> >> become unstable that would justify having a 1.4 branch ? Or is > >>>>>>> >> there > >>>>>>> >> any changes that will go to 1.4 branch that should not go to > trunk > >>>>>>> >> ? I > >>>>>>> >> know we have been creating release branches in the past, but the > >>>>>>> >> trunk > >>>>>>> >> used to be a very active development stream and usually with > >>>>>>> >> disruptive changes, but now that we have the 1.x branch as a > more > >>>>>>> >> stable branch, do you guys think that we could try cutting the > 1.4 > >>>>>>> >> release direct from the 1.x branch, and avoid merges back and > >>>>>>> >> forth > >>>>>>> >> from these branches, and I believe it would make the release > >>>>>>> >> process > >>>>>>> >> simpler ? > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> Thoughts ? > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> -- > >>>>>>> >> Luciano Resende > >>>>>>> >> Apache Tuscany, Apache PhotArk > >>>>>>> >> http://people.apache.org/~lresende<http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende> > >>>>>>> >> http://lresende.blogspot.com/ > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> Luciano Resende > >>>>>>> Apache Tuscany, Apache PhotArk > >>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~lresende<http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende> > >>>>>>> http://lresende.blogspot.com/ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I think this would work if we stop changes on 1.x, concentrate on > >>>>>> getting the release out before resuming changes on 1.x. Everyone > willing to > >>>>>> get involved in getting the release out quickly? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Simon > >>>>> > >>>>> I think we need to keep both the 1.4 and 1.x branches for now sorry. > >>>>> One reason is we've quite a lot of work happening with the Tuscany > Geronimo > >>>>> integration right now and we will need to do changes in the Tuscany > code to > >>>>> support that. This is based on 1.x and it will be some time before > 2.0 is > >>>>> ready enough to move to that. I think its also quite likely we'll > need a > >>>>> 1.4.1 especially since its been so long since we've done a 1.x trunk > release > >>>>> so need a stable place for that to happen while still allowing other > 1.x > >>>>> changes to continue. > >>>>> > >>>>> I don't think this will be onerous, its not much work merging changes > >>>>> from 1.4 to 1.x, if anyone does find it too hard just say and i'll > help, and > >>>>> we can revisit if we need to keep this once the Geronimo and 2.0 work > are > >>>>> more complete. > >>>>> > >>>>> ...ant > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> hmm, I actually don't don't have a particularly strong opinion one way > >>>> or the other. If you think that 1.4.1 is a possiblity then we should > stick > >>>> with the release branch. b.t.w who's release manager on this. > >>>> > >>>> Simon > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Thanks & Regards, > >>> Ramkumar Ramalingam > >> > >> Ram are you going to be the release manger for 1.4. Looking back through > >> the various threads I see that Luciano offered at one stage. You have > been > >> doing most of the work to date. Did you two reach some agreement on who > was > >> taking the helm? > >> > >> Simon > > > > > > > > -- > > Thanks & Regards, > > Ramkumar Ramalingam > > > > > > -- > Luciano Resende > Apache Tuscany, Apache PhotArk > http://people.apache.org/~lresende <http://people.apache.org/%7Elresende> > http://lresende.blogspot.com/ > Yep, +1 for Ram as RM. He's been doing a sterling job so far. Simon
