Instead of creating a branch, lets just tag it. What say you Craig?
We really just need a "bookmark" to the revision of /trunk that gets
deleted. A branch does that, but it also implies that there is some
development going on. If we just tag /trunk prior to it being deleted,
we have our bookmark without implying that it is an active development
branch.
Elliot
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eric,
Thanks for this message and all the patches you have recently contributed to
Pluto. I just did a diff between pluto-1.1.x and trunk, and I found a number of
differences. Most if them were minor, but a few of them were not. So I'd rather
not get rid of the current trunk code for now since I am not 100% sure that all
the trunk code has been properly merged with the 1.1-286-trunk-merge branch.
Therefore, I intend to copy the current trunk to a pluto-1.2.0 branch before I
move the 1.1-286-trunk-merge branch into the SVN trunk sometime early next week.
At a later date when we have a stable JSR-286 RI in the SVN trunk, we can vote
on getting rid of the pluto-1.2.0 branch. I'd just rather not do it now.
/Craig
-----Eric Dalquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -----
To: [email protected]
From: Eric Dalquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 01/04/2008 10:51AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move 1.1-286-trunk-merge branch to trunk
While I don't have any say in this my view is along the same lines as
Elliots.
1.0.x is dead
1.1.x is being used and will likely need patch releases for the
foreseeable future
1.2.x is pointless with 2.0 on the horizon and if there are any changes
in 1.2.x that aren't in 1.1 or 2.0 they should be merged where
appropriate and 1.2 should be abandoned
-Eric
Elliot Metsger wrote:
> Sorry I'm coming in late on this discussion.
>
> I'm +1 for promoting the 286-trunk-merge to trunk, and +1 for bumping
> all the pom revs to 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT thereafter. I haven't followed the
> 286 coding much at all but I fully support its promotion. Thank you
> to Craig, Torsten and others for making the 286 work happen.
>
> The pluto-1.0.2 branch is pretty much dead, and I don't think any
> development effort has happened on it for over a year. I have no
> opinion about keeping it or deleting it. SVN makes it easy to get back.
>
> The pluto-1.1.x branch should continue to be maintained for now. It
> seems to be very stable, and we are still getting some bug fixes and
> enhancements towards 1.1.x from the community. I think that the
> pluto-1.1.x branch should be the basis for a 1.2.x branch (if we
> decide to do a 1.2.0 release).
>
> The remaining branches (initial, 1.1.0-ADMIN-PORTLET-CRAIG,
> 1.1-286-COMPATIBILITY) can go away I think.
>
> I don't believe that the current trunk (1.2.0) has any features over
> the 1.1.x branch - I'll double check Jira and the SVN log to make
> sure. Effort has been made to keep 1.1.x and 1.2.0 the same.
>
> I think we can forgo a 1.2 release and that the 286-trunk-merge should
> become trunk. I think the easiest way would be what Ate suggested and
> remove trunk and move the 1.1-286-trunk-merge to trunk. If history
> has been properly maintained during the 1.1-286-trunk-merge work, I
> don't think we will "loose" any history that matters.
>
> If we ever want to put forward effort to have a 1.2.x branch (perhaps
> putting 1.1.x into maint mode to focus dev effort) we can create it
> from the 1.1.x branch; then we won't have any regressions from 1.1.x
> and we can just add the 1.5 sugar on top. If the 1.5 sugar is sweet
> enough, it could be merged back to trunk.
>
> If it is decided not to release 1.2.0 from the current trunk, and
> instead release it based off of another branch at a later time, we'll
> need to some cleanup in Jira as well.
>
> Elliot
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Ate,
>>
>> Thanks for your well-considered comments (see below).
>>
>>
>> -----Ate Douma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -----
>>
>> >To: [email protected]
>> >From: Ate Douma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >Date: 12/19/2007 03:12AM
>> >Subject: Re: [VOTE] Move 1.1-286-trunk-merge branch to trunk
>> >
>> >I'm +1 in general.
>> >
>> >But we also should discuss what to do with the current trunk.
>> >I haven't closely followed the trunk status, but there might be
>> >(significant) changes since the 1.4.0 release?
>> >Although the JSR-286 is supposed to be JSR-168 backwards compatible,
>> >we cannot assume every user is going to migrate to Pluto 2.0
>> >(immediately).
>> >Thus we have to cater for future maintenance / bug fixes on at least
>> >the latest 1.x version too, which effectively means there will be 2
>> >active Pluto >versions... (comparable to for instance Tomcat 5.5.x
>> and Tomcat 6.x
>> >development).
>> >
>> >So I think we might need to release the current trunk (as Pluto 1.1.5
>> >or 1.2, whatever) *before* the 1.1-JSR-286-trunk-merge branch becomes
>> >trunk.
>>
>> A few weeks ago, Elliot volunteered to do a Pluto 1.1.5 release and
>> was preparing that in the 1.1.x branch, which, I believe, is a clone
>> of the trunk. Please comment, Elliot.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Once the trunk is released, I suggest deleting it and then simply
>> >copying the 1.1-286-trunk-merge branch to trunk.
>> >Note: this way we might cause some annoying svn history breakage but
>> >I see no other quick solution, short of merging the
>> >1.1-JSR-286-trunk-merge back into trunk >which I expect will not
>> be a trivial task.
>> >
>>
>> Pluto 1.1 development began in a branch that was eventually moved
>> into the trunk after 1.0.1 was released (Please comment, David).
>> Before 1.1 moved into the trunk, a Pluto 1.0.2 branch was created for
>> future 1.0.x development. I see the 1.1.x branch functioning in the
>> same way: the place for future 1.1 development.
>> The 1.1-286-trunk-merge branch is a merge with the both the trunk and
>> the 1.1.-286-COMPATIBILITY branch. I see no need for further merging.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Regards,
>> >
>> >Ate
>> >
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> Hi all,
>> >> >> The JSR-286 Expert Group's work is being completed in the
>> next few
>> >weeks.
>> >> The JSR-286 RI work lead by Torsten Dettborn should also be
>> >finished at
>> >> that time. That work started in the 1.1-286-COMPATIBILITY branch,
>> >but it
>> >> has moved to the 1.1-286-trunk-merge branch with my help. As its
>> >name
>> >> implies, the 1.1-286-trunk-merge branch now has fully integrated
>> >trunk code
>> >> into the JSR-286 code.
>> >> >> When the final RI work is done, Ate Duoma suggested that the
>> code
>> >be tagged
>> >> in Subversion (remember a tag is not a release). That point would
>> >also be a
>> >> good time to move the 1.1-286-trunk-merge code into the trunk. I
>> >suggest we
>> >> change the pom version to 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT at that time.
>> >> >> Is this something you can support?
>> >>
