On Sep 23, 2005, at 8:13 AM, Sean Schofield wrote:
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.
Well agreed partly. Any release has bugs, some have to be fixed some
can wait until the next official release. For bugs that must be fixed
in the existing release we can and should be changing a branch (and
of course applying the same fix to the trunk). The reason this is
important is that some users can't tolerate the risk of being on the
trunk because of the unstable (perceived or true) nature of trunk.
Instead they want to be on a relatively stable branch that is changed
only slightly and only when a 'big' bug is found and fixed.
This does increase our overhead but I think given the state of the
project (how many users) we need to get to this level of
sophistication. We are also at the state where we really need
automated tests to help us make sure we've not hosed ourselves. I
will try to get some automation done WRT running 'simple' with both
myfaces-all.jar and (myfaces-api.jar, myfaces-impl.jar, and
tomahawk.jar) which should at least prevent problems like this from
sneaking past us.
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).
Yes this is the downside of subprojects & externals.
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.
tags are by convention not commited to but are instead a constant
'state of the project at a point in time'
branches are used as described earlier
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?)
I like 1.1.1, or 1.1.0.1 (too long IMO). I'm open though.
TTFN,
-bd-
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
