It needs to be like [collections], but probably not as automated
Website is built from trunk.
Javadoc of 2.1 release is built from 2.1 branch and copied to server in apidocs-2.1 directory
Hyperlink of 2.1 javadoc is inserted into navigation.xml of trunk
Stephen
----- Original Message ----- From: "Henri Yandell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Though now I'm a bit confused about whether the website should exist on the 2.1 branch or not :)
Odd as it sounds, I think we should we be releasing code from 2.1 branch, and building the site from trunk.
Otherwise it'll be a bit odd I think. Sound insane?
Hen
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 15:22:08 -0500, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Only question is whether to specify a 0 for the 0th maintenance. Not a big deal though, I've setup the following release branch:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jakarta/commons/proper/lang/branches/LANG_2_1_BRANCH
the naming matches the syntax we used for 1.0 when making 1.0.1. I know it could be a lot better (especially as SVN doesn't barf on . as CVS does), but I'm going with consistency for the moment.
I'll start tweaking that towards a release. Trunk is 2.2-dev now.
Hen
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 18:36:13 -0500, Gary Gregory
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Personally, I've always liked the following numbering scheme:
>
> Major.Minor.Maintenance.
>
> Gary
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 2:08 PM
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [lang] release strategy
>
> Personally I find the three digit release numbers just confusing. I > much
>
> prefer to reserve the third digit for essential patches.
>
> So, I'm happy to have a 2.1-branch, but I want the release to be 2.1,
> not
> 2.1.0 or 2.1.1.
>
> Stephen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henri Yandell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I'm very tempted to try the branch then release strategy, and > > wondered
> > what people thought about the idea. It might suggest a slight change
> > to the version number style:
> >
> > Create 2.1 branch.
> > Make changes to 2.1 branch until we're ready for release.
> > Tag 2.1 branch with 2.1.0 tag.
> > ... later
> > Change 2.1 branch until we're ready for release
> > Tag 2.1 branch with 2.1.1tag.
> > ... later in parallel
> > Change trunk until we're near a release
> > Create 2.2 branch (or 3.0)
> > Change 2.2 until ready
> > Tag 2.2 with 2.2.0
> >
> > etc.
> >
> > If we called it 2.1-head or something, it wouldn't need the version
> > change, it just feels more logical to go with a 2.1.0 release than a
> > 2.1 one if we use this style of development.
> >
> > Anyway, it seems to me that this fits us more nowadays. We end up > > with
> > the text package slowing down because it's not planned for the next
> > release, and having to avoid various other bugzilla requests as
> > they're not wanting to be fixed until later.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > Hen
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
