We can certainly create a branch but the idea is that we eventually have an official release and that's it. Of course there will be minor bugs and those just get fixed in the next release. If you need something before then you use the nightly. This is kind of a weird exception.
Even with a branch we need tagged releases and creating either is not exactly trivial because of all of the subprojects. See my wiki instructions for an example of what is required (http://wiki.apache.org/myfaces/Building_a_Release). Its still not clear to me the difference between svn tags and branches because you can (after ignoring warnings) check into a tagged version. So in this case this is what I suggest we do b/c the error is such a significant one. Normally I would say we should change the release number, etc. and do an official release (even if its just a minor change) and maybe we should consider that in order to avoid confusion (are you using the new or old 1.1.0?) sean On 9/23/05, Mike Kienenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm certainly no expert in making releases nor am I a committer, but > why start off being sloppy? There's a bug that warrants an immediate > release. There's no guarantee that another such bug won't turn up > after the next release and require another release. That's what > branches are for, so why resist using them? > > Because work on MyFaces are ongoing, it's not reasonable to try to > support maintenance releases without branches, is it? > > On 9/23/05, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sigh. How did we miss this one? I thought we did a test of > > everything? This is probably the only type of error where we could > > justify doing this although its kind of embarassing that it happened > > in the first place. > > > > Technically you can check into a tagged version so this is probably > > the best thing to do. Let me know when its done (and tested) and I > > can do a rebuild and re-publish of the myfaces binary bundles over the > > weekend. > > > > sean > > > > On 9/23/05, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > We have been discussing doing a release as the problem with the > > > faces-config.xml missing in the myfaces-all.jar is a very prominent > > > one ;) > > > > > > If there is a way of fixing the existing release with just the > > > faces-config.xml file, that would be better! > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > On 9/23/05, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > as long as 1_1_0 is ok to change (by convention tags are not > > > > > modified, only branches). > > > > > > > > Technically you can change it but SVN (at least Tortoise SVN) warns > > > > you and says its a tag and you shouldn't. Why do we need a branch at > > > > this point? > > > > > > > > We could create a branch for it but lets establish why this is > > > > necessary first. > > > > > > > > > > > > > All I'm looking for is a place to change the release only enough to > > > > > get the faces-config.xml file in place (as well as the other missing > > > > > bits because that file is not found) and then get a new release > > > > > pushed out. > > > > > > > > > > Martin M is planning on doing another release from the trunk after I > > > > > finish my commit. That is fine but risky. > > > > > > > > We're doing a release? I haven't read every message on the dev list > > > > but I must have missed this discussion. What is the motivation for > > > > this? > > > > > > > > > TTFN, > > > > > > > > > > -bd- > > > > > > > > sean > > > > > > > > > On Sep 23, 2005, at 5:53 AM, Sean Schofield wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > -1 > > > > > > > > > > > > Note that after I tagged the 1.1 release I created a external in the > > > > > > "release" dir so if you use > > > > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/release/1_1_0/ you will get > > > > > > "current" but for the release. It doesn't include sandbox so its > > > > > > not > > > > > > quite the same but sandbox is not part of the official release. > > > > > > > > > > > > Doesn't this give you what you need? > > > > > > > > > > > > sean > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/23/05, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> I agree with Martin on this - if you need everything, you can > > > > > >> always > > > > > >> checkout MyFaces, right? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> regards, > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Martin > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On 9/23/05, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005, Bill Dudney wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> Well the idea is that people would then be using current/trunk > > > > > >>>> to checkout > > > > > >>>> instead of just current. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> But by definition, what's in branches and tags is not current, so > > > > > >>> why does > > > > > >>> it make sense to include them under 'current'? The structure you > > > > > >>> described > > > > > >>> is exactly what you have without using the 'current' external in > > > > > >>> the first > > > > > >>> place, isn't it? > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> -- > > > > > >>> Martin Cooper > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> TTFN, > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> -bd- > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> On Sep 22, 2005, at 12:31 PM, Martin Cooper wrote: > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005, Bill Dudney wrote: > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Hi All, > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> I'd like to propose that we change current to be; > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> current > > > > > >>>>>> /branches > > > > > >>>>>> /tags > > > > > >>>>>> /trunk > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Still all externals but tracking the group of tags & branches > > > > > >>>>>> that are > > > > > >>>>>> common across all the subprojects. > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> current/trunk -> becomes what we currently call current > > > > > >>>>>> current/branches -> currently empty > > > > > >>>>>> current/tags -> 1_1_0 with externals to each subproject's > > > > > >>>>>> 1_1_0 tag > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> I would recommend against doing that. It would mean that > > > > > >>>>> everyone checking > > > > > >>>>> out 'current' would end up with multiple copies of the entire > > > > > >>>>> source tree, > > > > > >>>>> which is unlikely to be something that they would want. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> Most people are unlikely to want more than one version of the > > > > > >>>>> source at any > > > > > >>>>> given time, so I don't see a need to clump together multiple > > > > > >>>>> versions in a > > > > > >>>>> single checkout. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> -- > > > > > >>>>> Martin Cooper > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> To fix the faces-config.xml bug that's been identified in the > > > > > >>>>>> 1_1_0 > > > > > >>>>>> release we can create a branch in current/branches/1_1_0 that > > > > > >>>>>> uses > > > > > >>>>>> externals to the tags for everything but 'build' which would > > > > > >>>>>> point to the > > > > > >>>>>> 1_1_0 branch in build (not yet created but I'd be glad to do > > > > > >>>>>> that). > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> Thoughts? > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> TTFN, > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> -bd- > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> -- > > > > > >> > > > > > >> http://www.irian.at > > > > > >> Your JSF powerhouse - > > > > > >> JSF Trainings in English and German > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > http://www.irian.at > > > Your JSF powerhouse - > > > JSF Trainings in English and German > > > > > >
