Fwd: Post-1.0.0 release actions

[Craig L Russell]

Hi,




Thanks,

Craig

Begin forwarded message:

Any best practice for continuum-ly building two separate branches of a code line?

From: Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: August 30, 2007 5:25:16 PM PDT
To: Craig L Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Post-1.0.0 release actions

Can you ask continuum-users or -dev?





Cheers,
Brett

On 31/08/2007, at 3:30 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:

The branch support in Continuum is quite new and I don't have a lot of experience with it, so Emmanuel will give a better answer. My impression is that, at the moment, the branch support is still suited to switching a single project, not maintaining multiple ones, so a separate group is probably appropriate (it's what we do on the Maven one).

Hi Brett,





Please advise,

Craig

Begin forwarded message:

We'd like to build both trunk and branches/1.0.x using continuum. These are two living code lines (with more to be added over time). What's best practice in terms of continuum? I think adding a second project called OpenJPA 1.0.x would be appropriate, instead of adding 14 new projects to the existing OpenJPA project.

Questions:

1. Should we move our continuum build at http:// vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/projectGroupSummary.action? projectGroupId=18 over to the "1.0.x" branch, or keep in on "trunk"?

We can actually configure continuum to build both trunk and 1.0.x, and I'd think that this should be the default going forward. It makes sure that both the future 1.1 and the future 1.0.1 packages remain buildable (once we figure out why the distribution doesn't build from continuum).

Craig Russell

Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/ jdo

408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature