Re: Bumping tags

["Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@apache.org>]

>> Well then why are the patches in the tree??? I'm not sure I like the 
>> idea of
>> tagging and then tagging just some files. Seems like if we haven't got a
>> stable HEAD we shouldn't be tagging. We got into this whole business of
>> tagging often as a way of avoiding having this sort of thing. Ifw e 
>> tagged
>> and it wasn't stable, who cares. Just retag when it is and move on...
>>
>> This seems to be a growing trend and one I think we should stop.
>
> I disagree.  I see a lot of value in managing a release by tagging then 
> selectively
> picking up showstopper fixes. And the RM should make the decision if this 
> is the way he
> wants to get the release out.

I strongly dislike the action of tagging the tree with a version number
and then moving that tag.  If we aren't sure about the version, then the
RM should use a personal tag and only replace it with the real version tag
when we are sure.  If people aren't willing to run up the version numbers,
then they shouldn't tag them as such until the version is ready for 
tarball.

Justin already showed that an RM can do it this way effectively.

....Roy

Re: Bumping tags

[Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>]

> >> Well then why are the patches in the tree??? I'm not sure I like the
> >> idea of
> >> tagging and then tagging just some files. Seems like if we haven't got a
> >> stable HEAD we shouldn't be tagging. We got into this whole business of
> >> tagging often as a way of avoiding having this sort of thing. Ifw e
> >> tagged
> >> and it wasn't stable, who cares. Just retag when it is and move on...
> >>
> >> This seems to be a growing trend and one I think we should stop.
> >
> > I disagree.  I see a lot of value in managing a release by tagging then
> > selectively
> > picking up showstopper fixes. And the RM should make the decision if this
> > is the way he
> > wants to get the release out.
>
> I strongly dislike the action of tagging the tree with a version number
> and then moving that tag.  If we aren't sure about the version, then the
> RM should use a personal tag and only replace it with the real version tag
> when we are sure.

+1

Running up the version number is not the issue (al least for me). Getting a stable release
tagged and rolled is.  Enabling the RM to tag then selectively bump the tag to fix
showstoppers is proving to be an effective way to get good releases out.

Bill

RE: Bumping tags

[Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>]

> From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:fielding@apache.org]
> Sent: 01 May 2002 00:09

> >> Well then why are the patches in the tree??? I'm not sure I like the 
> >> idea of
> >> tagging and then tagging just some files. Seems like if we haven't got a
> >> stable HEAD we shouldn't be tagging. We got into this whole business of
> >> tagging often as a way of avoiding having this sort of thing. Ifw e 
> >> tagged
> >> and it wasn't stable, who cares. Just retag when it is and move on...
> >>
> >> This seems to be a growing trend and one I think we should stop.
> >
> > I disagree.  I see a lot of value in managing a release by tagging then 
> > selectively
> > picking up showstopper fixes. And the RM should make the decision if this 
> > is the way he
> > wants to get the release out.
> 
> I strongly dislike the action of tagging the tree with a version number
> and then moving that tag.  If we aren't sure about the version, then the
> RM should use a personal tag and only replace it with the real version tag

Should we invent an RM prerelease tag which will be removed after the final
tag with the version number?

> when we are sure.  If people aren't willing to run up the version numbers,
> then they shouldn't tag them as such until the version is ready for 
> tarball.
> 
> Justin already showed that an RM can do it this way effectively.

Point taken.  I'll remember that for my next RM adventure.  For this release
I'd like to continue like I started (one last bump), so we can get 2.0.36 out
the door.  And yes, I liked justins method aswell.

/me slaps himself for not tagging with STRIKER first...
 
> .....Roy

Sander