|> Yes please go ahead,
|> Thanks for taking care of that,
|
|Ah... Marc you're so good in choosing volounteers... ;)
|But OK, I will take care of this.
Thank you, put yourself in my shoes, I am just glad you take on some work,
since it is sucking the life out of me.
|> 2.2 branch current code with a FINAL tag (there is very
|> little bitchin...)
|> we will put a 2.2.1 if we need to with bug fixes.
|>
|> a 2.3 branch for development of new features.
|
|You mean that you would like to exit with a 2.2 ASAP ?
yes. There is little worth in a drawn out beta of features that have been
tested.
|Maybe it is worth to ask for a vote on jboss-dev if there is someone that
|would like to commit some useful patch before 2.2 ?
No vote, this is not java-apache's +1/-1 of people that don't do much BUT
vote, witness the recent "clustering" sputtering out, you code you "vote" by
default.
|> the "howto" is a very good idea,
|
|I will first write this howto, post it to jboss-docs also (and to the web
|site), then will go on with tagging / branching, OK for you ? (or you have
|more urgency of releasing the 2.2 ?)
Please put a FINAL out ASAP (tonight) the beta is "artificial" at this
point.
Thank you very much for your help Simone,
marc
|
|Simon
|
|>
|> marc
|>
|>
|> |-----Original Message-----
|> |From: Juha Lindfors [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|> |Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2001 4:08 AM
|> |To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
|> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|> |Subject: RE: VERSIONS & BRANCHES
|> |
|> |
|> |
|> |Guys,
|> |
|> |now that we have the CVS up and running at SF, can we go
|> ahead with the
|> |branching plan?
|> |
|> |There's a slew of commits going in again, people are
|> bitching about our 2.1
|> |distros not being the same, we can't recreate them, etc.
|> |
|> |Simone, would you like to take this task? You seemed to have
|> the best idea
|> |how to go about this.
|> |
|> |If you do, before you do anything with the CVS, please
|> please please please
|> |write a detailed step by step howto for committers how to
|> deal with the
|> |branches, tags, etc.
|> |
|> |-- Juha
|> |
|> |
|> |At 09:52 8.3.2001 -0000, Simone wrote:
|> |>Tom,
|> |>
|> |>perfectly resumed !
|> |>
|> |>So:
|> |>
|> |>cvs co jboss
|> |>cvs tag 2_3_0
|> |>cvs tag -b 2_1
|> |>cvs co -r 2_1
|> |>cvs tag 2_1_0
|> |>
|> |>would be the way to go...
|> |>
|> |>Marc ?
|> |>
|> |>Simon
|> |>
|> |>
|> |>> -----Original Message-----
|> |>> From: Tom Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
|> |>> Sent: giovedi 8 marzo 2001 0:56
|> |>> To: JBoss-Dev
|> |>> Subject: RE: [jBoss-Dev] VERSIONS & BRANCHES
|> |>>
|> |>>
|> |>> On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Bordet, Simone wrote:
|> |>>
|> |>> There seems to be a lot of confusion about what exactly
|> everyone is
|> |>> proposing here, so please allow me to summarise what I think
|> |>> are the best
|> |>> points of each.
|> |>>
|> |>> * Development of new features is done on the trunk. Commits
|> |>> here require
|> |>> no tagging.
|> |>> * When the release manager (marc?) is happy with the
|> features in the
|> |>> trunk, a branch is created for the next version (say, 2_4).
|> |>> * When the release manager is happy with the stability of
|> the branch,
|> |>> a new release is tagged, say 2_4_0.
|> |>> * Every time a developer commits a patch on that branch, he
|> |>> must re-tag
|> |>> it, say as 2_4_1, AFTER ensuring the tests all run correctly.
|> |>> * Every time a developer commits a patch on a branch, he must
|> |>> consider, in
|> |>> consultation with other developers, whether it is needed in the
|> |>> trunk, and if so apply it there. *Carefully*.
|> |>> * Similarly, when a developer commits a bug-fix (NOT new
|> |>> feature) on the
|> |>> trunk, he must consider whether it is required in the branch for
|> |>> the latest release.
|> |>> * Old branches die when a new branch is created.
|> |>>
|> |>> That way we don't end up with messy 'stable' or 'patches'
|> |>> tags, don't have
|> |>> horrible tags like the 'rel_2_4_build_20013007' or some such
|> |>> which someone
|> |>> suggested (can you imagine typing that regularly? no tab
|> completion
|> |>> here...), and it's simple enough that people might
|> actually stick to
|> |>> it. Since there is no real central control over the
|> |>> repository, this is a
|> |>> significant consideration. If something is too complicated,
|> |>> people will
|> |>> just do it their own way, which is easier and non-standard.
|> |>> My signature
|> |>> is in fact a restatement of this principle.
|> |>>
|> |>> My HO.
|> |>>
|> |>> Tom
|> |>> --
|> |>> "If you mess with something for long enough it will break."
|> |>> - Schmidt's law of engineering
|> |>>
|> |>>
|> |>
|> |>
|>
|
|_______________________________________________
|Jboss-development mailing list
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
