Okay, then +1
--jason
On Jun 21, 2006, at 10:19 PM, David Blevins wrote:
The only thing done in a branches/x.y.z made from branches/x.y is
the release process itself. When we agree we look good enough to
cut and run, we freeze, make the branch and put together a release
candidate. At the point of the freeze the release manager owns the
branches/x.y.z till the vote passes. That's the ideal scenario
anyway.
-David
On Jun 21, 2006, at 9:40 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
Does this mean that the bulk of changes will be done on M.m
branches and only release + minor changes done on M.m.r branches?
--jason
On Jun 21, 2006, at 6:52 PM, David Blevins wrote:
We had this whole conversation last week, lots of good discussion
was
had. I'd prefer not to have to have it again. Here is my exact
understanding of our consensus and would like to put it to a vote to
avoid reinterpretation of that consensus in the future.
1. branches/x.y would be the branch for all x.y.z releases
2. when a release is frozen, we spin off a branch with that
*exact*
name, as in branches/x.y.z, where z starts at zero and
increments
by one.
3. at that time branches/x.y is immediately updated to version
x.y.(z+1)-SNAPSHOT
3. We cut releases from the frozen branch
4. When a release passes final tck testing and final vote, the
frozen branch is moved to tags
We create a branch at freeze time for the following reasons:
1. it takes *at least* one week from freeze to ship due to voting,
tck testing and potential repeats of that process (re-cut,
re-certify, re-vote). There is no reason why work on x.y.z+1
needs to be delayed -- only 52 weeks a year.
2. stronger guarantee no one is updating the branch once frozen
3. less likely that people and ci systems (continuum) will checkout
and build pre-release versions of x.y.z (not x.y.z-SNAPSHOT)
which
would need to be removed manually and may accidentally be
distributed.
4. it is currently very difficult to roll version numbers forward,
entries here and there are often missed. Far better to have
branches/x.y have a few straggling old x.y.z-SNAPSHOT versions
than a few overlooked x.y.z final numbers that needed to go back
to SNAPSHOT -- they never leave SNAPSHOT and need to be reverted
back later if that process happens in the frozen branch.
Here is my +1
-- David
On Jun 21, 2006, at 4:14 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
After the branches/1.1 was moved to tags there was some question
as to what happened to the 1.1 branch. At that time some kind
soul created a new branches/1.1.1. No activity has occurred in
that branch and given that we'll need to define the release
goals of 1.1.1 soon I'd like to propose the following.
After 1.1 is released:
* Delete branches/1.1.1
* Move branches/1.1.0 to tags/1.1.0
* Copy tags/1.1.0 to branches/1.1.1
* Update branches 1.1.1 to be 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT
* Start working on 1.1.1
When 1.1.1 enters time for release
* Move branches/1.1.1 to branches/1.1.1.0
* Change version from 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT to 1.1.1
* Create release candidate rc1
* put out for a vote
* get a successful vote with no respins :)
* move from branches/1.1.1.0 to tags/1.1.1.0
Based on all the confusion in the past I think this procedure
makes it clear what phase were in for the release as well as
avoids tagging and branching repeatedly.
I'm looking for lazy consensus and not a formal vote.
Matt