Sounds good except for the part of tagging being a branch. :) Tagging is not reworking any of the core just adding a feature. If so, then everything should be coded as a branch. Modularization is a prime candidate in my opinion for branching in case we want to do some work in trunk with Roller.
-Elias Allen Gilliland wrote: > That sounds right to me, but I think branches/roller_2.x makes more > sense. It's just a matter of convention, but I think that 2.x suggests > that it's the ongoing branch for 2.x development, if there is any. > > We should probably have a little bit of discussion about what we want > for the standard way of trunk -> branch -> tag process. I don't think > we have followed any strict conventions up until now, and it would be > nice to actually do that. > > I suggest the repository is used like this ... > > trunk - do main work here > > branches/roller_3.0 - only used during RC phase for a release, becomes a > tag when RC is approved. > > branches/whatever - used when development can't be done in trunk. i.e. > branches/roller_3.1_tagging or branches/roller_jdobackend > > tags/roller_X.x - final resting place for releases. these never change. > > > So the release process is ... > > 1. do some amount of work in the trunk. > 2. you think that it's worthy of release and copy trunk to a branch with > release number and create an RC from that branch. > 3. community evaluates and votes on that RC. > 4. if changes are needed they are done to the trunk and merged into the > branch, then a new RC is created and we go back to step #3. > 5. when an RC is approved by the community the branch is moved to a tag > and the release goes out. > > this way when a release is at the RC stage the trunk is still free for > further development which does not have to affect the branch used for > creating the release. then the tags are just for archiving purposes. > > i am open to any changes in this process, i mainly just want a > documented process so that anyone could follow the steps and know > exactly what to do. i also think this makes sense because it keeps the > repository clean so it's easy to know what's being used and how. some > things that seem worth fixing to me are ... > > tags/roller_2.2_scrapped/ > tags/roller_2.4_alpha1/ > > neither of those are *final* releases, so i'm not sure why they are > tagged. i think it's easy to just say, tags are only releases that go > public, everything else is a branch. also, we don't have a roller_2.1 > tag, which is not cool :/ > > branches/roller_2.3/ > > do we still need that for something? i would think that after a release > goes public it's branch is no longer needed because work continues in > the trunk, or if it was the last in a major rev then work continues in > the .x branch for that major rev. > > anyways, what do you guys think? > > -- Allen > > > Dave Johnson wrote: >> Yes, I'd like to make Roller 3.0 the trunk as soon as possible. >> >> Anybody object to this? >> >> 1) move trunk to branches/roller_2.4_unreleased >> >> 2) move branches/roller_3.0 to trunk >> >> - Dave >> >> >> >> >> On 9/13/06, Allen Gilliland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> any reason why we can't do this now? >>> >>> -- Allen >>> >
