On 5/30/05, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruce Snyder wrote:
> >
> > There most certainly is tagging in SVN. Albeit the concept of tagging
> > in SVN is very different from CVS. The same is true for branches in
> > SVN as well. SVN just makes copies of everything because the SVN
> > developers made the assumption that disk space is cheap. This doesn't
> > mean that we can't continue to utilize tagging just the way we have
> > with the mileston releases so far.
> >
>
> The problem we have currently is that there is no continuity between our
> releases - the APIs, deployment plans, etc. have all changed
> incompatibly between them. This was fine with milestones; however, when
> we do a production release users need to have confidence that things
> won't break with the next one.
>
> This is the primary purpose of the stable tree - consider it a major
> branch point where we make sure that applications running on it continue
> to work from release to release. There may be multiple branches inside
> that tree, and multiple tags along each branch, but what we are
> committing to with the tree as a whole is that continuity for users.
>
> Constrast with the unstable tree where we may want to change APIs,
> schemas or pre-reqs (e.g. JVM level) to add new features that are not
> backwards compatible.
>
> Yes, this is all just branches but users still need to know which
> branches provide this stability and which do not.
Right. IIUC, you're saying it's not an all or nothing type of strategy
like we have right now. We need a strategy (and a well documented one)
for addressing the new strategy (when we decide what that is).
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)[EMAIL
PROTECTED]&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
The Castor Project
http://www.castor.org/
Apache Geronimo
http://geronimo.apache.org/
