You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com> on 2005/11/01 04:09:34 UTC
Re: Old tags in Geornimo
-----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 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