You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com> on 2005/10/29 19:03:01 UTC
Old tags in Geornimo
I think that we should remove the old tags, i.e. M1-M4.
Regards,
Alan
Re: Old tags in Geornimo
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> This is a good point. What if we moved the tag to a directory called
> archived?
[Yes, I saw this in the original (*an* original?) proposal. :-)]
I feel that keeping the mnemonic is the first importance -- but
followed closely by keeping it findable. Most (if not all) of
the Apache SVN trees follow the TTB pattern, and it's recommended
in the SVN docco, so if someone has any expectations of the layout
that's what they'll be. Unless they browse down from the top of
the tree, or see a link in a file/document somewhere, they're
not going to find /archived/tags/M3.
I'm still +1 for keeping the tags in place, and +0 on renaming
them to address the 'is this supported' issue. MHO.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBQ2kleZrNPMCpn3XdAQIMnwP/Vx49YHDFLq7nWqoeYz07LX0ulU6LBy/C
ISWCzY1OSnwCMMsKnpmrvSuJ4DeSDol4bZZxD8kSfnyYYlmty0Z7ZN6khfUChzxs
ZgZljZ6AXZSvRvGJVHUMoWCPeIip+cxIoep6guRMBf7qxHmmEs4RtQr5GGiKD9KA
MJWKrmxc1yI=
=7WM7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Old tags in Geornimo
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Oct 31, 2005, at 9:48 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> Rodent of Unusual Size wrote, On 10/31/2005 7:09 PM:
>
>
>> A milestone represents a significant point in the development.
>> Until there's a released version that is feature- and bug-
>> compatible with what they're doing, a milestone reference
>> is better than anything else. Why would you want to remove
>> a reference to an accomplishment? Rename it perhaps (to
>> 'M1_NO_LONGER_SUPPORTED' or something).
>>
>>
> This is a good point. What if we moved the tag to a directory
> called archived?
>
Wasn't that the original proposal ... or did you leave out the smiley
required to be that facetious? :)
-David
P.S. Get it, I was being facetious too.
Re: Old tags in Geornimo
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote, On 10/31/2005 7:09 PM:
>A milestone represents a significant point in the development.
>Until there's a released version that is feature- and bug-
>compatible with what they're doing, a milestone reference
>is better than anything else. Why would you want to remove
>a reference to an accomplishment? Rename it perhaps (to
>'M1_NO_LONGER_SUPPORTED' or something).
>
>
This is a good point. What if we moved the tag to a directory called
archived?
Regards,
Alan
Re: Old tags in Geornimo
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> That would not be a friendly way to go. I am arguing that we remove the
> temptation.
And I'm arguing that revising history is unfriendly.
> I would use this as an argument for removing milestone tags as quickly
> as possible. People should not be building against a milestone tag,
> only a released verison.
LOL! People have this curious habit of building against
what they want to build against. And resenting people
who try to tell them they're doing their pet project wrong. :-)
> Using a milestone tag would not be the way to go here. Subversion
> version numbers work quite nicely here.
Eugh. Tags are a friendly way of mnemonicising rev numbers.
Telling someone to use a particular transaction number is
*really* unfriendly. And again, we *don't know* how people
might be using the tags. Yanking tags out from under them
is pretty unfriendly too.
> Agreed. I am arguing that *milestone* tags are not the way to support
> the above scenarios.
A milestone represents a significant point in the development.
Until there's a released version that is feature- and bug-
compatible with what they're doing, a milestone reference
is better than anything else. Why would you want to remove
a reference to an accomplishment? Rename it perhaps (to
'M1_NO_LONGER_SUPPORTED' or something).
> To what end will someone dig up, say, M3? A supported tag e.g. v1_0_0
> or v1_0_5 I can see.
That's the point -- we *don't know* why they might. Customers
are endlessly inventive, particularly at using things in
unanticipated ways. Maybe they want to graph progress or
change rate between milestones; who knows? I don't think we
can assume that we can guess ahead of time all possible reasons
all possible people might want to use the tags.
One of the common practices about open development is keeping
history intact. Forever. Good and bad.
Again, that's me. My US$0.02.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBQ2bcbprNPMCpn3XdAQK3KgQA3VaXwKGfwH5iFZA0bFBnbawODbngVAgk
/xjJ77NKS923FokMok8kY3Lp2tUwf8DF62qa8IWMSm/LiMh2Dh6REmhrOWrEpexT
bUPyUzs4pzQH+Lm7q8vYVtXLVHnY1qpK8XZSy6HCqrKeoLRAgtXGJ5th4muyyM1N
WQCnVDDKhyE=
=yR3C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Old branches (was: Old tags in Geornimo)
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
On 10/31/05, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> Can we kill this old branch?
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/branches/1.0-M5
>
> We have a tag for it here.
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/tags/1_0_M5
>
> And can we also agree that we don't leave branches hanging around
> after every release unless that is planned to be an actual branch point?
+1 on both points.
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
The Castor Project
http://www.castor.org/
Apache Geronimo
http://geronimo.apache.org/
Re: Old branches (was: Old tags in Geornimo)
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
+1
-dain
On Oct 31, 2005, at 6:06 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> Can we kill this old branch?
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/branches/1.0-M5
>
> We have a tag for it here.
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/tags/1_0_M5
>
> And can we also agree that we don't leave branches hanging around
> after every release unless that is planned to be an actual branch
> point?
>
> -David
>
Re: Old branches
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
David Blevins wrote, On 10/31/2005 6:06 PM:
> Can we kill this old branch?
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/branches/1.0-M5
>
> We have a tag for it here.
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/tags/1_0_M5
>
> And can we also agree that we don't leave branches hanging around
> after every release unless that is planned to be an actual branch point?
+1 kill, kill, kill!
Regards,
Alan
Re: Old branches (was: Old tags in Geornimo)
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
On 11/2/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 2005, at 9:18 AM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
>
> > On 11/2/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I suggest next time we are creating a milestone, preview or tag only
> >> (unsupported) release, we don't create the temp branch in branches.
> >>
> >
> > I respectfully disagree with this idea and my reasons are simple -
> > tags are meant to mark a point in time and *should not change* (i.e.,
> > commits to a tag should not happen). If a tag needs to change (i.e.,
> > something needs to be committed to it) then that tag figuratively
> > becomes a branch (and should therefore be moved to the branches dir).
>
> You know, I think the big problem here is we are trying to apply CVS
> terminology and dogma developed due to the limitations of CVS. In
> CVS, the dogma is you never create a branch from a tag, always branch
> then tag. In subversion there is no difference between a tag and a
> branch and we can easily change between them. The difference lives
> in how we treat them.
Yes, it is a figurative and semantic difference (unless one implements
some sophisticated commit hooks to disable committing to a tag).
However, the concepts of tags vs. branches does not change from CVS to
SVN - tags are meant to be static whereas branches are meant to be
lines of development. In fact, here's a message from the svn-user@
mailing list supporting this notion:
http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2003-09/0021.shtml
> I get the feeling that this debate is in a quagmire because we do not
> have a common set of definitions for the terms we are using, so let's
> formally define them.
Actually, I agree completely with this statement. Agreement on terms
and their definitions is more meaningful than any other concept
really.
> I think we have the following categories for
> code lines in our repository:
>
> supported code line (mutable)
> snapshot code line (immutable)
> experimental code line
> ?? others ??
>
> The nice thing with subversion is we can switch a code line between
> the three groups with zero impact to history and development. We can
> simply move a code line to a new category, or create a copy of a code
> line in a new category.
Exactly ;-).
> Another big problem we have is creating a snapshot line is can not
> atomic operation. Subversion is more then willing to make an atomic
> copy, but we can not create a snapshot code line without modifying
> the build and sometimes the code, and then there is certification
> testing which sometimes requires modification to the code line. I
> think how we handle the hand off from a supported code line to a
> snapshot code line is at the heart of this debate.
Yes, and this is a very common dilemma. The recommended procedure is
the following set of steps:
1) Create a tag from HEAD named tag_foo1
2) Create a branch from tag_foo named tag_foo1_branch
3) Do work
4) Create a tag from tag_foo1_branch named tag_foo2
5) Remove tag_foo1_branch accordingly
The reasons for making the two tags is many, but the most important
one is to easily create a diff between the start and the end of the
development. This covers any need to merge changes back into HEAD from
the work done on the branch. In addition, copies are cheap in
Subversion so creating many, many tags has little impact on the
server.
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
The Castor Project
http://www.castor.org/
Apache Geronimo
http://geronimo.apache.org/
Re: Old branches (was: Old tags in Geornimo)
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
On 11/2/05, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> > One minor clarification. IMO, tags should remain intact forever.
> > Therefore a tag should be copied to the branches dir, not moved. But I
> > digress... ;-).
> >
>
> Awesome. That's my preference as well, just didn't want to be
> inflexible and wasn't sure if you meant "therefore be moved" as in
> "svn move".
>
> Can you +1 my proposal for clarity?
I did that for the original message that started this discussion
thread two days ago.
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
The Castor Project
http://www.castor.org/
Apache Geronimo
http://geronimo.apache.org/
Re: Old branches (was: Old tags in Geornimo)
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Nov 2, 2005, at 11:19 AM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
> On 11/2/05, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Guys, you are totally agreeing. To paraphrase Dain, "It should be
>> fine to create a branch from a tag, forget CVS dogma." To paraphrase
>> Bruce, "If we need to updated a tag, move it to the branches dir at
>> that point, so it's not a tag anymore."
>>
>
> I think we're in agreement as well.
>
>
>> And my thoughts are the same as well, "If we need to update a tag for
>> some unknow reason in the future, let's move it (or copy it with a
>> new name) to the branches directory at that point."
>>
>
> One minor clarification. IMO, tags should remain intact forever.
> Therefore a tag should be copied to the branches dir, not moved. But I
> digress... ;-).
>
Awesome. That's my preference as well, just didn't want to be
inflexible and wasn't sure if you meant "therefore be moved" as in
"svn move".
Can you +1 my proposal for clarity?
Thanks,
David
Re: Old branches (was: Old tags in Geornimo)
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
On 11/2/05, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> Guys, you are totally agreeing. To paraphrase Dain, "It should be
> fine to create a branch from a tag, forget CVS dogma." To paraphrase
> Bruce, "If we need to updated a tag, move it to the branches dir at
> that point, so it's not a tag anymore."
I think we're in agreement as well.
> And my thoughts are the same as well, "If we need to update a tag for
> some unknow reason in the future, let's move it (or copy it with a
> new name) to the branches directory at that point."
One minor clarification. IMO, tags should remain intact forever.
Therefore a tag should be copied to the branches dir, not moved. But I
digress... ;-).
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
The Castor Project
http://www.castor.org/
Apache Geronimo
http://geronimo.apache.org/
Re: Old branches (was: Old tags in Geornimo)
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Nov 2, 2005, at 10:51 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> On Nov 2, 2005, at 9:18 AM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
>
>
>> On 11/2/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I suggest next time we are creating a milestone, preview or tag only
>>> (unsupported) release, we don't create the temp branch in branches.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I respectfully disagree with this idea and my reasons are simple -
>> tags are meant to mark a point in time and *should not change* (i.e.,
>> commits to a tag should not happen). If a tag needs to change (i.e.,
>> something needs to be committed to it) then that tag figuratively
>> becomes a branch (and should therefore be moved to the branches dir).
>>
>
> You know, I think the big problem here is we are trying to apply
> CVS terminology and dogma developed due to the limitations of CVS.
> In CVS, the dogma is you never create a branch from a tag, always
> branch then tag.
Guys, you are totally agreeing. To paraphrase Dain, "It should be
fine to create a branch from a tag, forget CVS dogma." To paraphrase
Bruce, "If we need to updated a tag, move it to the branches dir at
that point, so it's not a tag anymore."
And my thoughts are the same as well, "If we need to update a tag for
some unknow reason in the future, let's move it (or copy it with a
new name) to the branches directory at that point."
Did I capture everything correctly?
-David
Re: Old branches (was: Old tags in Geornimo)
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Nov 2, 2005, at 9:18 AM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
> On 11/2/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I suggest next time we are creating a milestone, preview or tag only
>> (unsupported) release, we don't create the temp branch in branches.
>>
>
> I respectfully disagree with this idea and my reasons are simple -
> tags are meant to mark a point in time and *should not change* (i.e.,
> commits to a tag should not happen). If a tag needs to change (i.e.,
> something needs to be committed to it) then that tag figuratively
> becomes a branch (and should therefore be moved to the branches dir).
You know, I think the big problem here is we are trying to apply CVS
terminology and dogma developed due to the limitations of CVS. In
CVS, the dogma is you never create a branch from a tag, always branch
then tag. In subversion there is no difference between a tag and a
branch and we can easily change between them. The difference lives
in how we treat them.
I get the feeling that this debate is in a quagmire because we do not
have a common set of definitions for the terms we are using, so let's
formally define them. I think we have the following categories for
code lines in our repository:
supported code line (mutable)
snapshot code line (immutable)
experimental code line
?? others ??
The nice thing with subversion is we can switch a code line between
the three groups with zero impact to history and development. We can
simply move a code line to a new category, or create a copy of a code
line in a new category.
Another big problem we have is creating a snapshot line is can not
atomic operation. Subversion is more then willing to make an atomic
copy, but we can not create a snapshot code line without modifying
the build and sometimes the code, and then there is certification
testing which sometimes requires modification to the code line. I
think how we handle the hand off from a supported code line to a
snapshot code line is at the heart of this debate.
-dain
Re: Old branches (was: Old tags in Geornimo)
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
On 11/2/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> I suggest next time we are creating a milestone, preview or tag only
> (unsupported) release, we don't create the temp branch in branches.
I respectfully disagree with this idea and my reasons are simple -
tags are meant to mark a point in time and *should not change* (i.e.,
commits to a tag should not happen). If a tag needs to change (i.e.,
something needs to be committed to it) then that tag figuratively
becomes a branch (and should therefore be moved to the branches dir).
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
The Castor Project
http://www.castor.org/
Apache Geronimo
http://geronimo.apache.org/
Re: Old branches (was: Old tags in Geornimo)
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
This is exactly why I brought it up last time. There is obviously
something wrong when the people that are supposed to know better are
making mistakes? It is just confusing to have the branch there....
it is not a branch just a temp place we worked wile packaging the
release.
I suggest next time we are creating a milestone, preview or tag only
(unsupported) release, we don't create the temp branch in branches.
+1 to remove the confusing, non-supported, temporary branch we
created for 1.0-M5 packaging.
-dain
On Nov 1, 2005, at 10:09 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> The last nail in the coffin for me was when, in a sleep deprived
> state, I got a little disoriented and built the M5 installer from
> the branch directory rather than the tag directory. Accidents happen.
>
> A simple svn copy cheaply creates a new branch, keeps it clear its
> different than the tag, and gives someone a place to work with it.
> The possibility of that is small, so we'll just let the person
> create it when they wish to do something weird. :)
>
> -David
>
> On Nov 1, 2005, at 3:20 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>
>> I don't understand the harm of leaving the branches - it costs
>> nothing since it's already created, it keeps the history clear,
>> and it gives someone an opportunity in the future to work with
>> it. I know the probability of that is small, but people do weird
>> things...
>>
>> geir
>>
>> On Oct 31, 2005, at 9:06 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Can we kill this old branch?
>>>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/branches/1.0-M5
>>>
>>> We have a tag for it here.
>>>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/tags/1_0_M5
>>>
>>> And can we also agree that we don't leave branches hanging around
>>> after every release unless that is planned to be an actual branch
>>> point?
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
>> geirm@apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Old branches (was: Old tags in Geornimo)
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
The last nail in the coffin for me was when, in a sleep deprived
state, I got a little disoriented and built the M5 installer from the
branch directory rather than the tag directory. Accidents happen.
A simple svn copy cheaply creates a new branch, keeps it clear its
different than the tag, and gives someone a place to work with it.
The possibility of that is small, so we'll just let the person create
it when they wish to do something weird. :)
-David
On Nov 1, 2005, at 3:20 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> I don't understand the harm of leaving the branches - it costs
> nothing since it's already created, it keeps the history clear, and
> it gives someone an opportunity in the future to work with it. I
> know the probability of that is small, but people do weird things...
>
> geir
>
> On Oct 31, 2005, at 9:06 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>
>> Can we kill this old branch?
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/branches/1.0-M5
>>
>> We have a tag for it here.
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/tags/1_0_M5
>>
>> And can we also agree that we don't leave branches hanging around
>> after every release unless that is planned to be an actual branch
>> point?
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
> geirm@apache.org
>
>
>
Re: Old branches (was: Old tags in Geornimo)
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
I don't understand the harm of leaving the branches - it costs
nothing since it's already created, it keeps the history clear, and
it gives someone an opportunity in the future to work with it. I
know the probability of that is small, but people do weird things...
geir
On Oct 31, 2005, at 9:06 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> Can we kill this old branch?
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/branches/1.0-M5
>
> We have a tag for it here.
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/tags/1_0_M5
>
> And can we also agree that we don't leave branches hanging around
> after every release unless that is planned to be an actual branch
> point?
>
> -David
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: Old branches
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
David Blevins wrote, On 10/31/2005 6:06 PM:
> Can we kill this old branch?
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/branches/1.0-M5
>
> We have a tag for it here.
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/tags/1_0_M5
>
> And can we also agree that we don't leave branches hanging around
> after every release unless that is planned to be an actual branch point?
>
> -David
+1
Regards,
Alan
Old branches (was: Old tags in Geornimo)
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
Can we kill this old branch?
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/branches/1.0-M5
We have a tag for it here.
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/tags/1_0_M5
And can we also agree that we don't leave branches hanging around
after every release unless that is planned to be an actual branch point?
-David
Re: Old tags in Geornimo
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote, On 10/31/2005 1:32 PM:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>
>>Tags imply that they are supported.
>>
>>
>
>Really? I've never encountered that before. Maybe against a
>V1_0_0 tage, but then you just tell someone 'nope, not supported.'
>M1 means 'milestone one,' right?
>
>
That would not be a friendly way to go. I am arguing that we remove the
temptation.
>Another thing to consider is people who build against the
>idiosyncrasies of a particular tagged version. Making the
>tag harder to find/check out does them no service. This
>sort of thing was (is?) seen a lot with the Apache APR
>code. Things like Subversion and the Apache httpd code
>are released with specific versions of APR expected. So
>what if they're obsolete? Make the tag harder to find
>and it's harder to use.
>
>
I would use this as an argument for removing milestone tags as quickly
as possible. People should not be building against a milestone tag,
only a released verison. Maybe if it was important for a particular
project to have a particular snapshot we would cut a supported tag, and
most likely a branch if we really liked them, but, imho, using milestone
tags is not the way to go.
>One situation in which I could see this being relevant is
>a company wanting to incorporate code. They might want to
>pick a particular point in time in order to do their
>'pedigree' checking of the IP issues.
>
>
Using a milestone tag would not be the way to go here. Subversion
version numbers work quite nicely here.
>So it's not just the meaning to Geronimo that's relevant
>here, but the meaning of the tags to consumers/users of
>the code.
>
>
Agreed. I am arguing that *milestone* tags are not the way to support
the above scenarios.
>If the only reason to do anything with the old tags is
>the concern that someone might consider them as implying
>support, I'd suggest finding a way to negate that impression
>that doesn't involve affecting the history or ease of
>finding it.
>
>
To what end will someone dig up, say, M3? A supported tag e.g. v1_0_0
or v1_0_5 I can see.
Regards,
Alan
Re: Old tags in Geornimo
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> Tags imply that they are supported.
Really? I've never encountered that before. Maybe against a
V1_0_0 tage, but then you just tell someone 'nope, not supported.'
M1 means 'milestone one,' right?
Another thing to consider is people who build against the
idiosyncrasies of a particular tagged version. Making the
tag harder to find/check out does them no service. This
sort of thing was (is?) seen a lot with the Apache APR
code. Things like Subversion and the Apache httpd code
are released with specific versions of APR expected. So
what if they're obsolete? Make the tag harder to find
and it's harder to use.
One situation in which I could see this being relevant is
a company wanting to incorporate code. They might want to
pick a particular point in time in order to do their
'pedigree' checking of the IP issues.
So it's not just the meaning to Geronimo that's relevant
here, but the meaning of the tags to consumers/users of
the code.
If the only reason to do anything with the old tags is
the concern that someone might consider them as implying
support, I'd suggest finding a way to negate that impression
that doesn't involve affecting the history or ease of
finding it.
Just my US$0.02, and I'm not a coder on Geronimo.
- --
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQCVAwUBQ2aNWJrNPMCpn3XdAQLg/wQAi53JmLVNxuBE3trPGCwA7M23mldNXQXa
GPM2sdzAE/EO8I9cUVNpJkw9D5y3MKeDQXQ9oScoSkRZuClFq7Ht9JzvJzZeiNoS
+r+Zxg3Z2k8wMH/sdLGw5PWCl+V8/l1IVTARGUWMm5j0YIJLC0cf8CGLOnd3C/Ha
jeLOlkCsj/o=
=ZIn+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Old tags in Geornimo
Posted by John Sisson <js...@apache.org>.
I agree with Bruce. One may read mail archives or a Wiki entry trying
to find some information on a topic and find information that mentions
M3 or M4. We should keep the tags to allow one to piece together
something historical.
John
Bruce Snyder wrote:
> On 10/29/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
>
>>Good point. Maybe we should create an "archived" or "unsupported"
>>directory in tags that can hold these for historical purposes.
>
>
> I disagree that the M1-M4 tags should be removed altogether. Tags are
> nothing more than a marker for a point in time so I disagree that they
> indicate any level of support. If that were true, most open source
> projects would be crucified for all the tags in CVS/SVN.
>
> I am very much in favor of creating an archive directory in order to
> keep the old tags around.
>
> Bruce
> --
> perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> );'
>
> The Castor Project
> http://www.castor.org/
>
> Apache Geronimo
> http://geronimo.apache.org/
>
Re: Old tags in Geornimo
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
On 10/29/05, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> Good point. Maybe we should create an "archived" or "unsupported"
> directory in tags that can hold these for historical purposes.
I disagree that the M1-M4 tags should be removed altogether. Tags are
nothing more than a marker for a point in time so I disagree that they
indicate any level of support. If that were true, most open source
projects would be crucified for all the tags in CVS/SVN.
I am very much in favor of creating an archive directory in order to
keep the old tags around.
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
The Castor Project
http://www.castor.org/
Apache Geronimo
http://geronimo.apache.org/
Re: Old tags in Geornimo
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
Good point. Maybe we should create an "archived" or "unsupported"
directory in tags that can hold these for historical purposes.
-dain
On Oct 29, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> Tags imply that they are supported. These are really just self-
> consisistent snapshots that people can look at. I think that it's
> a really bad idea to keep M4 around.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
> Aaron Mulder wrote, On 10/29/2005 10:54 AM:
>
>
>> I would prefer if we didn't remove M4 yet, but it wouldn't bother me
>> to see M1-M3 go. On the other hand, I don't see why it benefits
>> us to
>> remove them.
>>
>> Aaron
>>
>> On 10/29/05, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I think that we should remove the old tags, i.e. M1-M4.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Alan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: Old tags in Geornimo
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Tags imply that they are supported. These are really just
self-consisistent snapshots that people can look at. I think that it's
a really bad idea to keep M4 around.
Regards,
Alan
Aaron Mulder wrote, On 10/29/2005 10:54 AM:
>I would prefer if we didn't remove M4 yet, but it wouldn't bother me
>to see M1-M3 go. On the other hand, I don't see why it benefits us to
>remove them.
>
>Aaron
>
>On 10/29/05, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I think that we should remove the old tags, i.e. M1-M4.
>>
>>
>>Regards,
>>Alan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: Old tags in Geornimo
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
I would prefer if we didn't remove M4 yet, but it wouldn't bother me
to see M1-M3 go. On the other hand, I don't see why it benefits us to
remove them.
Aaron
On 10/29/05, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> I think that we should remove the old tags, i.e. M1-M4.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
>
>