Clearly, we need something like this to get organized around the
final push for certification and the 1.0 release, by why not just
branch for the stable, and head is unstable?
geir
On May 27, 2005, at 12:07 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Stefan brings up the question of whether we want to release sub-
modules of Geronimo separately. I think this is a good idea and
would propose the following restructure of the tree to move in this
direction.
Rather than "trunk" in the root, we have three separate trees:
stable similar to even-numbered versions of Linux, this tree
would contain stable code intended for production use
and operates with a focus on stability (i.e. well
documented stable APIs, backward compatibility, no
SNAPSHOT dependencies etc.)
There will be multiple branches as needed.
unstable similar to odd-numbered versions this is where new
development is done and APIs etc. are much more
likely to change. We may still do releases from here
but they are quite likely to be incompatible; it may
be all we package from here are nightlies.
sandbox as now, a free-for-all area for trying out new ideas
and experimenting with new technologies
Given the size of the codebase, we need to preserve the module
structure that we have in the current trunk. However, even now some
modules are more stable than others (e.g. the transaction and
connector ones Thierry is looking to use) and I think are in a
position where they can be versioned separately.
With the structure above in place, we can move modules into the
stable or unstable trees as appropriate. For those that we consider
stable (e.g. transaction) we can cut numbered releases that people
can use standalone.
This will also speed the unstable build as we won't need to check
SNAPSHOTs for everything all the time.
I would suggest we start on this as part of packaging for M4 and
would be willing to co-ordinate.
--
Jeremy
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
