Yes - that's exactly what I'm saying - follow the accepted conventions as they do. It's still useful to talk about release candidates though since there isn't a single accepted policy at all, or whether to use release branching pattern at all (but I've always found feature branches having even less conventions - mostly it's free for all, so let's not go there)
Kalle On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Craig L Russell <[email protected]> wrote: > On this note, you might find the release branch policy used by OpenJPA > interesting: > > http://openjpa.apache.org/release-management.html > http://openjpa.apache.org/openjpa-release-policy.html > http://openjpa.apache.org/new-release-instructions-beta.html > > No need to reinvent the wheel. > > Craig > > On Dec 7, 2009, at 11:49 AM, Les Hazlewood wrote: > >> Nice - I do this too and I agree with you Kalle that it probably more >> naturally reflects the longevity of the branch: >> >> +1 to doing this for our releases. >> >> But where do release candidates fall in to this convention? >> >> - Les >> >> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Kalle Korhonen >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> A big +1 from me. >>>> I've been working this way for a while now and it has been really nice >>>> thus far. >>> >>> Agree - this is all according to Maven and svn best practices, >>> following release branching pattern (e.g. >>> http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.5/svn.branchmerge.commonpatterns.html). >>> Though I prefer naming branches with 1.x notation (rather than 1.0 or >>> 1.1) since a branch often outlives the version and Maven makes it easy >>> to manage versions and branches. I'll see to it this happens. We can >>> move to 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT rather quickly, then we'll deal with the >>> remaining issues in the next few weeks and during the holidays, I can >>> go over the poms to see that we are ready to release. >>> >>> Kalle >>> >>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Kalle Korhonen >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On that note, I think we should release 1.0.0. Current Maven >>>>> versioning scheme works "best" with x.x.x numbering (see >>>>> http://mojo.codehaus.org/versions-maven-plugin/version-rules.html). >>>>> It'd also would make sensible to then reserve the incremental version >>>>> (the last component) for bug fixes and allow using minor versions for >>>>> new (compatible) feature releases. In essence, after releasing 1.0.0, >>>>> we'd prepare the trunk for development of 1.1.0 and create 1.0.x >>>>> branch for bug fixes and continue feature development, bug fixes etc. >>>>> in the trunk until we identify a feature set we don't want to or won't >>>>> make it to the next release, at which time we'd pull a 1.1x branch and >>>>> update the trunk for development of 1.2.x (or even 2.0.x). >>>>> >>>>> Kalle >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Les Hazlewood <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I think most people in the Shiro community would agree that we're long >>>>>> overdue for our first release ;) >>>>>> >>>>>> So, to that end, and unless anyone objects, I'm going to take a crack >>>>>> at tagging only what I feel are the most important issues that >>>>>> absolutely must be in to 1.0. When I'm done with that, I'd like to >>>>>> post to this list again to allow people the opportunity to speak-up if >>>>>> they see something that they think should be included but I missed. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm doing this to help us get a little focus on what should concretely >>>>>> define our first release, and to get it out as soon as possible from >>>>>> now. Just my opinion, but I think it'd be great if we can finish all >>>>>> the 1.0 issues (if not actually release) by 1 January. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please let me know if anyone does not agree with this, otherwise, I'll >>>>>> get started as soon as possible organizing the existing issues. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Les >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> > > Craig L Russell > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo > 408 276-5638 mailto:[email protected] > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! > >
