Hi all, Sorry if I have missed something important, but for lack of time I only could rush through this thread. Just my 0.02 on this issue: - If I got it right, there is only a problem with the myfacse-all.jar, right? - So, as someone proposed earlier we could give a workaround hint ("use the single libs instead") on the homepage, right? - Therefore no need for too much hurry, IMO - I would prefer doing a normal "1.1.1 RC1" (instead of 1.1.0.1) release cancidate from the current source - I can check against TCK on monday - After that, we should tag with "1.1.1 RC1" and start voting on it - If there are bugs to fix then, we can discuss if it's better to do a branch or change current (depending on changes and/or additions in the meantime)
WDYT? -Manfred 2005/9/23, Bill Dudney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi Sean, > > I don't mind creating the branches in the same way we have created > the tags. > > I'm glad to create the branches, update the build.xml file run the > build and put myfaces-all.jar and (tomahawk, api & impl) and make > sure stuff works there. > > I'll call it 1_1_0_1. > > TTFN, > > -bd- > > On Sep 23, 2005, at 9:10 AM, Sean Schofield wrote: > > > I think we can move past the tag vs. branch discussion now. I've > > conceded a few emails ago that we should do a branch. > > > > I have to go offline for a few hours. Can this wait until a little > > later this afternoon? I can create a branch for us using the tag as > > the starting point. > > > > There is no rush. Rushing is what caused the problem in the first > > place. And yes there was a RC even though it wasn't widely publicized > > it was part of the VOTE thread and was mentioned on the PMC list. > > > > sean > > > > On 9/23/05, Mathias Brökelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> IMO releasing 1.1.0 was a fast shot. > >> > >> What I´ve missed where the release candidates which normally come > >> before the final release. We should get back to the normal procedure. > >> RCs give us the feedback we need to create good releases. > >> > >> Tags are supposed to be fixed and shouldn´t be changed after making > >> one. It would be really confusing if we change the tag 1.1.0 now and > >> make a new release number like 1.1.0.1 for it. > >> > >> I´ve already suggested to make a release branch from trunk. The > >> initial branch is the first RC. Each RC has it´s own tag (svn copy > >> from the release branch). If someone reports a major bug for the > >> RC we > >> have to fix it in current (trunk) and merge the fix into the release > >> branch too. This gives us the chance to commit changes into current > >> without affecting the release. A week after the RC we can vote for > >> making a new RC or release the final version if remaining bugs are > >> trivial. > >> > >> Tagging and branching with svn is a lot of work (Thanks Sean for > >> writing the doc!) But IMO we should automate it. Let us write a batch > >> script or use ant for this stuff. > >> > >> > >> 2005/9/23, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> > >>> 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 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> Mathias > >> > > > >