Hey Chris,
bear in mind that HEAD is a CVS-reserved tag and should not be used.
For example if you remove a file, this is under the HEAD tag (so you get it
doing cvs co -r HEAD while you shouldn't).
I don't agree with you in situation 3: at bullet 4 I don't see any use of
creating a branch of a branch, and bullet 5 is mandatory, not optional.
Also situation 2 may happen on a branch also, when a lot of bug fixes
requires a new binary.
I'll post my ideas in more details in few minutes, so we can discuss them,
ok ?
Simon
> Hi,
>
> >
> > Let's keep it simple.
> >
> > 2.3.build, build being incremented everytime a new feature or
> > bug fix is
> > built in, seems like a reasonable plan
> >
> > The only difficulty with the "build" is when people are
> doing stuff in
> > parallel. I guess there will be a "file not up to date"
> > thing ... so it
> > would work.
> >
> > Ok, so 2.1 is out... let's branch for new development... As I
> > asked let's
> > not commit new stuff in 2.1.
> >
>
> Don't you mean 2.1 is the branch and the mainline trunk is
> the new (2.3.1)
> stuff? In general people will be working on the mainline and
> thus it seems
> safer to make this the default - people have to specifically
> get 2.1 and
> that branch?
>
> > Can someone more knowledgeable than me in "branches" take
> > care of tagging
> > 2.1 and branching for the new development with 2.3.1
> >
>
> I could do this - if your happy with what I just said, so
> specifically.
>
> tag where we are now as 2.1.0
>
> Also create a branch 2.1.0-patches - which is what patches
> will be applied
> to ontop of 2.1.0 - we can then baseline a release on this
> branch if/when we
> want to (ie 2.1.1, 2.1.2 etc). Obviously patches on the
> branch will need to
> be applied to the main trunk - as appropriate.
>
> About going forward - a tag per check in seems OTT - every
> few weeks seem
> more appropriate - unless we are talking about specific patches to a
> release.
>
> See MINI-CVS-JBOSS-HOW-TO below
>
>
> > Again numbering:
> >
> > major, minor, build is tried and true. build in our case is the
> > responsability of every developer that commits something,
> > meaning a patch or
> > a feature.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > marc
> >
>
> HTH,
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> MINI-CVS-JBOSS-HOW-TO
>
>
> Situation 1: generally done by all developers - as its done now
>
> Doing a new feature/patch to the main app - ie working on 2.3.
> 1) Get the latest code from CVS (ie HEAD)
> 2) Make/test your changes
> 3) check in the changes
>
>
>
>
> Situation 2: done by a few "release managers" on an ad-hoc
> basis every few
> weeks
>
> Making a release (eg 2.3.0)
> 1) Get the latest code form CVS (ie HEAD)
> 2) run all tests - check they work ok
> 3) tag jboss (2.3.0) and create a patch branch (2.3.0-patches)
>
>
>
>
> Situation 3: could be done by any developing patching a release
>
> Patching a release (eg 2.3.0-patches ) - cos a fix is needed for it
> 1) get the patch branch - 2.3.0-patches
> 2) make/test changes
> 3) check in the changes
> 4) tag branch (2.3.1) and create patch branch of this (2.3.1-patches)
> 5) [optionaly] apply these changes to the main HEAD trunk - if needed
>
>
>
>
> ==============================================================
> ==================================
> This electronic message (email) and any attachments to it are
> subject to copyright and are sent for the personal attention
> of the addressee. Although you may be the named recipient, it
> may become apparent that this email and its contents are not
> intended for you and an addressing error has been made. This
> email may include information that is legally privileged and
> exempt from disclosure. If you have received this email in
> error, please advise us immediately and delete this email and
> any attachments from your computer system.Rabobank
> International is the trading name of Coöperatieve Centrale
> Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A. which is incorporated in the
> Netherlands. Registered with the Registrar of Companies for
> England & Wales No. BR002630 and regulated by the SFA for the
> conduct of investment business in the UK.
>
> The presence of this footnote also confirms that this email
> has been automatically checked by Rabobank International for
> the presence of computer viruses prior to it being sent,
> however, no guarantee is given or implied that this email is
> virus free upon delivery.
>
>
>
