You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openjpa.apache.org by Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> on 2007/08/30 01:22:21 UTC
Post-1.0.0 release actions
OpenJPA Developers-
With my remaining awesome (albeit waning) 1.0.0 Release Manager
powers, I went ahead and executed a few actions that we had discussed:
1. Cut a new branch for maintenance on the 1.0 line at http://
svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openjpa/branches/1.0.x/ (I thought "1.0.x"
would be cleared than the branch name "1.0" which we have previously
mentioned). Bug fixes destined for releases 1.0.1, 1.0.2, etc. should
go on this line.
2. Made a tag of the release at http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/
openjpa/tags/1.0.0/
3. Updated the release instructions at http://cwiki.apache.org/
openjpa/releasing-openjpa.html to reflect the new procedures.
4. Semi-manually updated the maven repository at /www/
people.apache.org/repo/m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository as per the release
page. If all goes well, the OpenJPA modules should be available from
http://www.ibiblio.org/maven2/org/apache/openjpa soon.
5. Merged up the changes in the 1.0.x branch into trunk (by running
the following command in a freshly checked-out trunk view: vn merge -
r https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openjpa/branches/1.0.x/, fixing
the conflicts, the committing).
Questions:
1. Should we move our continuum build at http://vmbuild.apache.org/
continuum/projectGroupSummary.action?projectGroupId=18 over to the
"1.0.x" branch, or keep in on "trunk"?
Unless there are any other issues with the release, thus ends my
tenure as OpenJPA 1.0.0 Release Manager. Thank you to everyone who
helped make this release a success!
Moving forward, I believe we should work towards a 1.0.1 release with
a new Release Manager soon, if for no other reason than that any
issues with the release instructions can be handled while they are
still fresh in my mind. Note, however, that I am going to be on
vacation for the entire month of September, so I won't be able to
assist with anything until October.
--
Marc Prud'hommeaux
Re: Fwd: Post-1.0.0 release actions
Posted by Emmanuel Venisse <em...@venisse.net>.
The best practice is to create two groups, one by branch. So you can identify easily all projects in a branch and you can build all projects of the branch by building the group. When you want to
delete the branch from Continuum, you only need to remove the group that contain the branch.
Emmanuel
Craig L Russell a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Any best practice for continuum-ly building two separate branches of a
> code line?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Craig
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>
>> Date: August 30, 2007 5:25:16 PM PDT
>> To: Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>
>> Cc: dev@openjpa.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Post-1.0.0 release actions
>>
>> Can you ask continuum-users or -dev?
>>
>> The branch support in Continuum is quite new and I don't have a lot of
>> experience with it, so Emmanuel will give a better answer.
>>
>> My impression is that, at the moment, the branch support is still
>> suited to switching a single project, not maintaining multiple ones,
>> so a separate group is probably appropriate (it's what we do on the
>> Maven one).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Brett
>>
>> On 31/08/2007, at 3:30 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Brett,
>>>
>>> We'd like to build both trunk and branches/1.0.x using continuum.
>>> These are two living code lines (with more to be added over time).
>>>
>>> What's best practice in terms of continuum? I think adding a second
>>> project called OpenJPA 1.0.x would be appropriate, instead of adding
>>> 14 new projects to the existing OpenJPA project.
>>>
>>> Please advise,
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>>>>> Questions:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Should we move our continuum build at
>>>>>> http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/projectGroupSummary.action?projectGroupId=18
>>>>>> over to the "1.0.x" branch, or keep in on "trunk"?
>>>>>
>>>>> We can actually configure continuum to build both trunk and 1.0.x,
>>>>> and I'd think that this should be the default going forward. It
>>>>> makes sure that both the future 1.1 and the future 1.0.1 packages
>>>>> remain buildable (once we figure out why the distribution doesn't
>>>>> build from continuum).
>>>
>>> Craig Russell
>>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
>>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>>
>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
Fwd: Post-1.0.0 release actions
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi,
Any best practice for continuum-ly building two separate branches of
a code line?
Thanks,
Craig
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>
> Date: August 30, 2007 5:25:16 PM PDT
> To: Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>
> Cc: dev@openjpa.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Post-1.0.0 release actions
>
> Can you ask continuum-users or -dev?
>
> The branch support in Continuum is quite new and I don't have a lot
> of experience with it, so Emmanuel will give a better answer.
>
> My impression is that, at the moment, the branch support is still
> suited to switching a single project, not maintaining multiple
> ones, so a separate group is probably appropriate (it's what we do
> on the Maven one).
>
> Cheers,
> Brett
>
> On 31/08/2007, at 3:30 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>
>> Hi Brett,
>>
>> We'd like to build both trunk and branches/1.0.x using continuum.
>> These are two living code lines (with more to be added over time).
>>
>> What's best practice in terms of continuum? I think adding a
>> second project called OpenJPA 1.0.x would be appropriate, instead
>> of adding 14 new projects to the existing OpenJPA project.
>>
>> Please advise,
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>>>> Questions:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Should we move our continuum build at http://
>>>>> vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/projectGroupSummary.action?
>>>>> projectGroupId=18 over to the "1.0.x" branch, or keep in on
>>>>> "trunk"?
>>>>
>>>> We can actually configure continuum to build both trunk and
>>>> 1.0.x, and I'd think that this should be the default going
>>>> forward. It makes sure that both the future 1.1 and the future
>>>> 1.0.1 packages remain buildable (once we figure out why the
>>>> distribution doesn't build from continuum).
>>
>> Craig Russell
>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/
>> jdo
>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: Post-1.0.0 release actions
Posted by pl...@gmail.com.
FWIW, I have a teamcity instance running that builds, tests, runs the
tck, and uploads 1.0.x whenever there's a svn checkin.
-Patrick
On 8/30/07, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> Can you ask continuum-users or -dev?
>
> The branch support in Continuum is quite new and I don't have a lot
> of experience with it, so Emmanuel will give a better answer.
>
> My impression is that, at the moment, the branch support is still
> suited to switching a single project, not maintaining multiple ones,
> so a separate group is probably appropriate (it's what we do on the
> Maven one).
>
> Cheers,
> Brett
>
> On 31/08/2007, at 3:30 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>
> > Hi Brett,
> >
> > We'd like to build both trunk and branches/1.0.x using continuum.
> > These are two living code lines (with more to be added over time).
> >
> > What's best practice in terms of continuum? I think adding a second
> > project called OpenJPA 1.0.x would be appropriate, instead of
> > adding 14 new projects to the existing OpenJPA project.
> >
> > Please advise,
> >
> > Craig
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> >>>> Questions:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. Should we move our continuum build at http://
> >>>> vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/projectGroupSummary.action?
> >>>> projectGroupId=18 over to the "1.0.x" branch, or keep in on
> >>>> "trunk"?
> >>>
> >>> We can actually configure continuum to build both trunk and
> >>> 1.0.x, and I'd think that this should be the default going
> >>> forward. It makes sure that both the future 1.1 and the future
> >>> 1.0.1 packages remain buildable (once we figure out why the
> >>> distribution doesn't build from continuum).
> >
> > Craig Russell
> > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
> >
>
--
Patrick Linskey
202 669 5907
Re: Post-1.0.0 release actions
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
Can you ask continuum-users or -dev?
The branch support in Continuum is quite new and I don't have a lot
of experience with it, so Emmanuel will give a better answer.
My impression is that, at the moment, the branch support is still
suited to switching a single project, not maintaining multiple ones,
so a separate group is probably appropriate (it's what we do on the
Maven one).
Cheers,
Brett
On 31/08/2007, at 3:30 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> Hi Brett,
>
> We'd like to build both trunk and branches/1.0.x using continuum.
> These are two living code lines (with more to be added over time).
>
> What's best practice in terms of continuum? I think adding a second
> project called OpenJPA 1.0.x would be appropriate, instead of
> adding 14 new projects to the existing OpenJPA project.
>
> Please advise,
>
> Craig
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>>>> Questions:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Should we move our continuum build at http://
>>>> vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/projectGroupSummary.action?
>>>> projectGroupId=18 over to the "1.0.x" branch, or keep in on
>>>> "trunk"?
>>>
>>> We can actually configure continuum to build both trunk and
>>> 1.0.x, and I'd think that this should be the default going
>>> forward. It makes sure that both the future 1.1 and the future
>>> 1.0.1 packages remain buildable (once we figure out why the
>>> distribution doesn't build from continuum).
>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
Fwd: Post-1.0.0 release actions
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Brett,
We'd like to build both trunk and branches/1.0.x using continuum.
These are two living code lines (with more to be added over time).
What's best practice in terms of continuum? I think adding a second
project called OpenJPA 1.0.x would be appropriate, instead of adding
14 new projects to the existing OpenJPA project.
Please advise,
Craig
Begin forwarded message:
>>> Questions:
>>>
>>> 1. Should we move our continuum build at http://
>>> vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/projectGroupSummary.action?
>>> projectGroupId=18 over to the "1.0.x" branch, or keep in on "trunk"?
>>
>> We can actually configure continuum to build both trunk and 1.0.x,
>> and I'd think that this should be the default going forward. It
>> makes sure that both the future 1.1 and the future 1.0.1 packages
>> remain buildable (once we figure out why the distribution doesn't
>> build from continuum).
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: Post-1.0.0 release actions
Posted by Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org>.
Craig-
> Another part of the post-release analysis is deciding on how to
> update the release instructions. Last I looked earlier in the week
> they still reference the incubator. And we need to update the
> instructions to add the post-release merge back to the trunk...
I've updated the instructions at http://openjpa.apache.org/releasing-
openjpa.html with the newer procedure, although they don't mention
doing the merge.
On Aug 30, 2007, at 12:42 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> I'd like to say good job, well done. Can I say now that you've
> earned your time off?
>
> more below...
>
> On Aug 29, 2007, at 4:22 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
>
>> OpenJPA Developers-
>>
>> With my remaining awesome (albeit waning) 1.0.0 Release Manager
>> powers, I went ahead and executed a few actions that we had
>> discussed:
>>
>> 1. Cut a new branch for maintenance on the 1.0 line at http://
>> svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openjpa/branches/1.0.x/ (I thought
>> "1.0.x" would be cleared than the branch name "1.0" which we have
>> previously mentioned). Bug fixes destined for releases 1.0.1,
>> 1.0.2, etc. should go on this line.
>>
>> 2. Made a tag of the release at http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/
>> openjpa/tags/1.0.0/
>>
>> 3. Updated the release instructions at http://cwiki.apache.org/
>> openjpa/releasing-openjpa.html to reflect the new procedures.
>>
>> 4. Semi-manually updated the maven repository at /www/
>> people.apache.org/repo/m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository as per the
>> release page. If all goes well, the OpenJPA modules should be
>> available from http://www.ibiblio.org/maven2/org/apache/openjpa soon.
>>
>> 5. Merged up the changes in the 1.0.x branch into trunk (by
>> running the following command in a freshly checked-out trunk view:
>> vn merge -r https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openjpa/branches/
>> 1.0.x/, fixing the conflicts, the committing).
>>
>> Questions:
>>
>> 1. Should we move our continuum build at http://vmbuild.apache.org/
>> continuum/projectGroupSummary.action?projectGroupId=18 over to the
>> "1.0.x" branch, or keep in on "trunk"?
>
> We can actually configure continuum to build both trunk and 1.0.x,
> and I'd think that this should be the default going forward. It
> makes sure that both the future 1.1 and the future 1.0.1 packages
> remain buildable (once we figure out why the distribution doesn't
> build from continuum).
>>
>> Unless there are any other issues with the release, thus ends my
>> tenure as OpenJPA 1.0.0 Release Manager. Thank you to everyone who
>> helped make this release a success!
>>
>> Moving forward, I believe we should work towards a 1.0.1 release
>> with a new Release Manager soon, if for no other reason than that
>> any issues with the release instructions can be handled while they
>> are still fresh in my mind. Note, however, that I am going to be
>> on vacation for the entire month of September, so I won't be able
>> to assist with anything until October.
>
> Another part of the post-release analysis is deciding on how to
> update the release instructions. Last I looked earlier in the week
> they still reference the incubator. And we need to update the
> instructions to add the post-release merge back to the trunk...
>
> Craig
>
>>
>> --
>> Marc Prud'hommeaux
>>
>>
>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
Re: Post-1.0.0 release actions
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
I'd like to say good job, well done. Can I say now that you've earned
your time off?
more below...
On Aug 29, 2007, at 4:22 PM, Marc Prud'hommeaux wrote:
> OpenJPA Developers-
>
> With my remaining awesome (albeit waning) 1.0.0 Release Manager
> powers, I went ahead and executed a few actions that we had discussed:
>
> 1. Cut a new branch for maintenance on the 1.0 line at http://
> svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openjpa/branches/1.0.x/ (I thought "1.0.x"
> would be cleared than the branch name "1.0" which we have
> previously mentioned). Bug fixes destined for releases 1.0.1,
> 1.0.2, etc. should go on this line.
>
> 2. Made a tag of the release at http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/
> openjpa/tags/1.0.0/
>
> 3. Updated the release instructions at http://cwiki.apache.org/
> openjpa/releasing-openjpa.html to reflect the new procedures.
>
> 4. Semi-manually updated the maven repository at /www/
> people.apache.org/repo/m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository as per the
> release page. If all goes well, the OpenJPA modules should be
> available from http://www.ibiblio.org/maven2/org/apache/openjpa soon.
>
> 5. Merged up the changes in the 1.0.x branch into trunk (by running
> the following command in a freshly checked-out trunk view: vn merge
> -r https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/openjpa/branches/1.0.x/,
> fixing the conflicts, the committing).
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. Should we move our continuum build at http://vmbuild.apache.org/
> continuum/projectGroupSummary.action?projectGroupId=18 over to the
> "1.0.x" branch, or keep in on "trunk"?
We can actually configure continuum to build both trunk and 1.0.x,
and I'd think that this should be the default going forward. It makes
sure that both the future 1.1 and the future 1.0.1 packages remain
buildable (once we figure out why the distribution doesn't build from
continuum).
>
> Unless there are any other issues with the release, thus ends my
> tenure as OpenJPA 1.0.0 Release Manager. Thank you to everyone who
> helped make this release a success!
>
> Moving forward, I believe we should work towards a 1.0.1 release
> with a new Release Manager soon, if for no other reason than that
> any issues with the release instructions can be handled while they
> are still fresh in my mind. Note, however, that I am going to be on
> vacation for the entire month of September, so I won't be able to
> assist with anything until October.
Another part of the post-release analysis is deciding on how to
update the release instructions. Last I looked earlier in the week
they still reference the incubator. And we need to update the
instructions to add the post-release merge back to the trunk...
Craig
>
> --
> Marc Prud'hommeaux
>
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!