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 2007/08/20 18:26:10 UTC
[REMINDER] 1.0.0 branch tonight
OpenJPA Developers-
Pursuant to the vote at http://www.nabble.com/-DISCUSS--set-a-
deadline-for-1.0.0-features-t4233167.html , a branch for OpenJPA
1.0.0 will be created tonight at 11:59 PM EST, and a release
candidate will be immediately created for voting on the final 1.0.0
release.
If anyone needs more time for essential bugfixes, now is the time to
speak up.
--
Marc Prud'hommeaux
Re: [REMINDER] 1.0.0 branch tonight
Posted by Kevin Sutter <kw...@gmail.com>.
Marc,
We're on track for this 1.0.0 cutoff. Just an FYI... I am still working
with Teresa and Catalina to complete OPENJPA-321 (should be ready shortly)
and I just committed Teresa's changes for OPENJPA-323. I don't have any
other JIRA Issues expected to make tonight's cutoff.
Thanks,
Kevin
On 8/20/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> OpenJPA Developers-
>
> Pursuant to the vote at http://www.nabble.com/-DISCUSS--set-a-
> deadline-for-1.0.0-features-t4233167.html , a branch for OpenJPA
> 1.0.0 will be created tonight at 11:59 PM EST, and a release
> candidate will be immediately created for voting on the final 1.0.0
> release.
>
> If anyone needs more time for essential bugfixes, now is the time to
> speak up.
>
> --
> Marc Prud'hommeaux
>
>
>
Re: [REMINDER] 1.0.0 branch tonight
Posted by Patrick Linskey <pl...@gmail.com>.
> Maybe I wasn't clear in what I meant when I replied last night. I'm all for
> the 1.0.0 branch, I'm ambivalent about needing a 1.1.0 branch in addition to
> the 1.0.0 branch. I think that trunk can be used for all new function until
Agreed (almost). I agree that we should be doing 1.1-related work in
the trunk, at least for now.
The 1.0.0 branch that Marc created is a special-purpose,
release-transient thing. We won't cut a 1.0.1 release from the 1.0.0
branch. I'm suggesting that we create a 1.0 branch (note the lack of
the trailing patch number) that all the 1.0.x work will be isolated
to.
I think that we're talking about the same stuff, just with different terms.
-Patrick
On 8/21/07, Michael Dick <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think I agree with most of what you said - I just didn't explain myself
> well last night. Creating the 1.0.0 branch right away is the right thing to
> do, and it's one of the things that I messed up on with release 0.9.7.
>
> Maybe I wasn't clear in what I meant when I replied last night. I'm all for
> the 1.0.0 branch, I'm ambivalent about needing a 1.1.0 branch in addition to
> the 1.0.0 branch. I think that trunk can be used for all new function until
> we need a branch (ie release 1.1) or add function that requires a major
> version update (2.0).
>
> -Mike
>
> On 8/21/07, Patrick Linskey <pl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The plan can change when we have a roadmap in place or have targetted
> > JIRA
> > > issues for 1.1 vs 2.0.0.
> > >
> > > While creating the 1.0 parent branch is probably cleaner schematically I
> > > don't see a practical benefit unless there are changes coming that
> > warrant a
> > > major release. Until we get to that point I'm content to play it by ear
> > a
> > > bit. That's just MHO though.
> >
> > So in my opinion, both major and minor releases deserve to be on their
> > own branches. In my experience, major and minor lines can be treated
> > as equivalent from a SCM standpoint.
> >
> > I believe that we should branch immediately because I think that it is
> > useful to limit the work in the 1.0.x line to bugfixes. For example, I
> > just committed a patch (a couple hours late) for OPENJPA-256. That
> > patch can trivially be part of 1.0.1, but other new work that we do
> > for other projects (for example, Ignacio's streaming-lob project)
> > seems like it's higher-impact, and therefore should go into the 1.1
> > line.
> >
> > I agree that this means more thinking on our part, in order to work
> > out where to put a given code change and in terms of periodic merging,
> > but I think that it's worth the cost. Otherwise, we essentially get
> > into a mode where we cannot do patch releases with any guarantees for
> > existing users.
> >
> > I think that probably a decent compromise policy is to branch
> > immediately, and then for people to do all work in trunk unless they
> > feel the urge to do otherwise. We could decide that we won't do bulk
> > merges from maintenance branches back to the trunk, so if people want
> > to create bugfix releases, they'll have to do the work to merge
> > patches from trunk to the branch on their own. In that environment,
> > we'd have an ad-hoc means to support patch releases without mandating
> > any additional work for OpenJPA contributors who are happy to consume
> > the trunk contents.
> >
> > -Patrick
> >
> > On 8/20/07, Michael Dick <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 8/20/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > We will create a "1.0.0" branch as per the existing release process
> > > > at http://openjpa.apache.org/releasing-openjpa.html , so that if
> > > > anyone objects to the release for technical reasons (e.g., misplaces
> > > > license file), we can make those repairs in the "1.0.0" branch and
> > > > then re-cut the release without worrying about other changes that may
> > > > have been slipped into the trunk.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Whether or not we have a parent "1.0" branch to the "1.0.0" branch is
> > > > not something I have considered. Does anyone have any thoughts about
> > > > this? If so, we'll need to make it clear to people what work should
> > > > go into the "1.0" branch and what work should go into the trunk.
> > > > Since we don't have much of a long-term roadmap yet, it might make
> > > > sense to wait until we know which major features will go into OpenJPA
> > > > 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, etc. However, I don't have strong objections to making
> > > > a "1.0" branch.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd prefer to wait until we have a roadmap in place. If we create a
> > parent
> > > branch then we'll end up doing a lot of dual maintenance with trunk and
> > 1.0.
> > > If/when we need to add new function which breaks backwards compatibility
> > > then we can create a branch for 1.x and go forward with 2.0.0 in trunk.
> > >
> > > The plan can change when we have a roadmap in place or have targetted
> > JIRA
> > > issues for 1.1 vs 2.0.0.
> > >
> > > While creating the 1.0 parent branch is probably cleaner schematically I
> > > don't see a practical benefit unless there are changes coming that
> > warrant a
> > > major release. Until we get to that point I'm content to play it by ear
> > a
> > > bit. That's just MHO though.
> > >
> > > -Mike
> > >
> > > On Aug 20, 2007, at 6:20 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Well, I definitely don't think that work should happen in a branch
> > > > > called 1.0.0. Rather, it would seem that we would want to create a
> > > > > branch called 1.0, and tag from it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think that we should make a 1.0 branch tonight, and then all
> > future
> > > > > work in the 1.0 line will happen in it. So, if something goes wrong
> > > > > while building / voting on the release, we'll resolve those issues
> > in
> > > > > the 1.0 branch, not in trunk. That way, people can keep on working
> > on
> > > > > trunk, which will immediately become the 1.1 train.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Patrick
> > > > >
> > > > > On 8/20/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > >> Patrick-
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I expect that we'll keep the "1.0.0" branch around, and then make a
> > > > >> "1.0.0" tag once the release is cut and approved.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> What happens with the "1.0.0" branch (i.e., if 1.0.1 work takes
> > place
> > > > >> in the 1.0.0 branch or in trunk) is, I believe, a topic that has
> > yet
> > > > >> to be discussed.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Aug 20, 2007, at 1:42 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Hi,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I think that we should be making a permanent 1.0 branch, and then
> > > > >>> tag
> > > > >>> off of it, so that we have somewhere to work on 1.0.1. Or do
> > things
> > > > >>> work differently in svn?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> -Patrick
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On 8/20/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > >>>> OpenJPA Developers-
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Pursuant to the vote at http://www.nabble.com/-DISCUSS--set-a-
> > > > >>>> deadline-for-1.0.0-features-t4233167.html , a branch for OpenJPA
> > > > >>>> 1.0.0 will be created tonight at 11:59 PM EST, and a release
> > > > >>>> candidate will be immediately created for voting on the final
> > 1.0.0
> > > > >>>> release.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> If anyone needs more time for essential bugfixes, now is the
> > > > >>>> time to
> > > > >>>> speak up.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> --
> > > > >>>> Marc Prud'hommeaux
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> --
> > > > >>> Patrick Linskey
> > > > >>> 202 669 5907
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Patrick Linskey
> > > > > 202 669 5907
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Patrick Linskey
> > 202 669 5907
> >
>
--
Patrick Linskey
202 669 5907
Re: [REMINDER] 1.0.0 branch tonight
Posted by Michael Dick <mi...@gmail.com>.
I think I agree with most of what you said - I just didn't explain myself
well last night. Creating the 1.0.0 branch right away is the right thing to
do, and it's one of the things that I messed up on with release 0.9.7.
Maybe I wasn't clear in what I meant when I replied last night. I'm all for
the 1.0.0 branch, I'm ambivalent about needing a 1.1.0 branch in addition to
the 1.0.0 branch. I think that trunk can be used for all new function until
we need a branch (ie release 1.1) or add function that requires a major
version update (2.0).
-Mike
On 8/21/07, Patrick Linskey <pl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The plan can change when we have a roadmap in place or have targetted
> JIRA
> > issues for 1.1 vs 2.0.0.
> >
> > While creating the 1.0 parent branch is probably cleaner schematically I
> > don't see a practical benefit unless there are changes coming that
> warrant a
> > major release. Until we get to that point I'm content to play it by ear
> a
> > bit. That's just MHO though.
>
> So in my opinion, both major and minor releases deserve to be on their
> own branches. In my experience, major and minor lines can be treated
> as equivalent from a SCM standpoint.
>
> I believe that we should branch immediately because I think that it is
> useful to limit the work in the 1.0.x line to bugfixes. For example, I
> just committed a patch (a couple hours late) for OPENJPA-256. That
> patch can trivially be part of 1.0.1, but other new work that we do
> for other projects (for example, Ignacio's streaming-lob project)
> seems like it's higher-impact, and therefore should go into the 1.1
> line.
>
> I agree that this means more thinking on our part, in order to work
> out where to put a given code change and in terms of periodic merging,
> but I think that it's worth the cost. Otherwise, we essentially get
> into a mode where we cannot do patch releases with any guarantees for
> existing users.
>
> I think that probably a decent compromise policy is to branch
> immediately, and then for people to do all work in trunk unless they
> feel the urge to do otherwise. We could decide that we won't do bulk
> merges from maintenance branches back to the trunk, so if people want
> to create bugfix releases, they'll have to do the work to merge
> patches from trunk to the branch on their own. In that environment,
> we'd have an ad-hoc means to support patch releases without mandating
> any additional work for OpenJPA contributors who are happy to consume
> the trunk contents.
>
> -Patrick
>
> On 8/20/07, Michael Dick <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 8/20/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > We will create a "1.0.0" branch as per the existing release process
> > > at http://openjpa.apache.org/releasing-openjpa.html , so that if
> > > anyone objects to the release for technical reasons (e.g., misplaces
> > > license file), we can make those repairs in the "1.0.0" branch and
> > > then re-cut the release without worrying about other changes that may
> > > have been slipped into the trunk.
> >
> >
> >
> > Whether or not we have a parent "1.0" branch to the "1.0.0" branch is
> > > not something I have considered. Does anyone have any thoughts about
> > > this? If so, we'll need to make it clear to people what work should
> > > go into the "1.0" branch and what work should go into the trunk.
> > > Since we don't have much of a long-term roadmap yet, it might make
> > > sense to wait until we know which major features will go into OpenJPA
> > > 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, etc. However, I don't have strong objections to making
> > > a "1.0" branch.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> >
> > I'd prefer to wait until we have a roadmap in place. If we create a
> parent
> > branch then we'll end up doing a lot of dual maintenance with trunk and
> 1.0.
> > If/when we need to add new function which breaks backwards compatibility
> > then we can create a branch for 1.x and go forward with 2.0.0 in trunk.
> >
> > The plan can change when we have a roadmap in place or have targetted
> JIRA
> > issues for 1.1 vs 2.0.0.
> >
> > While creating the 1.0 parent branch is probably cleaner schematically I
> > don't see a practical benefit unless there are changes coming that
> warrant a
> > major release. Until we get to that point I'm content to play it by ear
> a
> > bit. That's just MHO though.
> >
> > -Mike
> >
> > On Aug 20, 2007, at 6:20 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well, I definitely don't think that work should happen in a branch
> > > > called 1.0.0. Rather, it would seem that we would want to create a
> > > > branch called 1.0, and tag from it.
> > > >
> > > > I think that we should make a 1.0 branch tonight, and then all
> future
> > > > work in the 1.0 line will happen in it. So, if something goes wrong
> > > > while building / voting on the release, we'll resolve those issues
> in
> > > > the 1.0 branch, not in trunk. That way, people can keep on working
> on
> > > > trunk, which will immediately become the 1.1 train.
> > > >
> > > > -Patrick
> > > >
> > > > On 8/20/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >> Patrick-
> > > >>
> > > >> I expect that we'll keep the "1.0.0" branch around, and then make a
> > > >> "1.0.0" tag once the release is cut and approved.
> > > >>
> > > >> What happens with the "1.0.0" branch (i.e., if 1.0.1 work takes
> place
> > > >> in the 1.0.0 branch or in trunk) is, I believe, a topic that has
> yet
> > > >> to be discussed.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Aug 20, 2007, at 1:42 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Hi,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I think that we should be making a permanent 1.0 branch, and then
> > > >>> tag
> > > >>> off of it, so that we have somewhere to work on 1.0.1. Or do
> things
> > > >>> work differently in svn?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> -Patrick
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 8/20/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >>>> OpenJPA Developers-
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Pursuant to the vote at http://www.nabble.com/-DISCUSS--set-a-
> > > >>>> deadline-for-1.0.0-features-t4233167.html , a branch for OpenJPA
> > > >>>> 1.0.0 will be created tonight at 11:59 PM EST, and a release
> > > >>>> candidate will be immediately created for voting on the final
> 1.0.0
> > > >>>> release.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> If anyone needs more time for essential bugfixes, now is the
> > > >>>> time to
> > > >>>> speak up.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> --
> > > >>>> Marc Prud'hommeaux
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> Patrick Linskey
> > > >>> 202 669 5907
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Patrick Linskey
> > > > 202 669 5907
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Patrick Linskey
> 202 669 5907
>
Re: [REMINDER] 1.0.0 branch tonight
Posted by Patrick Linskey <pl...@gmail.com>.
> I agree. I don't see the need for basing 1.1.0 on 1.0.0. But the
> continuation of 1.0.0 to 1.0.1, 1.0.2, etc should be on the 1.0.0
> branch.
So it sounds like we're all largely in agreement.
The thing is, per our current procedures, the 1.0.0 branch is just a
temporary thing. Additionally, it's called '1.0.0' -- hardly a great
place to make a 1.0.1 build from.
I think that we should change our procedures so that when building an
x.y.0 release, we name the branch x.y, and keep it around as the
branch that the x.y line lives in.
I think that we could further modify things to remove the need to
create a branch at all for an x.y.z release where z is greater than 0,
since the only work in the x.y branch will be bugfix work at that time
anyways.
-Patrick
On 8/22/07, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
>
> On Aug 21, 2007, at 8:31 AM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
>
> >> The plan can change when we have a roadmap in place or have
> >> targetted JIRA
> >> issues for 1.1 vs 2.0.0.
> >>
> >> While creating the 1.0 parent branch is probably cleaner
> >> schematically I
> >> don't see a practical benefit unless there are changes coming that
> >> warrant a
> >> major release. Until we get to that point I'm content to play it
> >> by ear a
> >> bit. That's just MHO though.
> >
> > So in my opinion, both major and minor releases deserve to be on their
> > own branches. In my experience, major and minor lines can be treated
> > as equivalent from a SCM standpoint.
>
> I agree. I don't see the need for basing 1.1.0 on 1.0.0. But the
> continuation of 1.0.0 to 1.0.1, 1.0.2, etc should be on the 1.0.0
> branch.
>
> At some point we might want to start putting some major unstable
> features into the code and make a branch for that work. But I think
> we're pretty far from that point.
> >
> > I believe that we should branch immediately because I think that it is
> > useful to limit the work in the 1.0.x line to bugfixes.
>
> Yes.
>
> > For example, I
> > just committed a patch (a couple hours late) for OPENJPA-256. That
> > patch can trivially be part of 1.0.1, but other new work that we do
> > for other projects (for example, Ignacio's streaming-lob project)
> > seems like it's higher-impact, and therefore should go into the 1.1
> > line.
>
> Which we can work on in the trunk.
>
> Craig
> >
> > I agree that this means more thinking on our part, in order to work
> > out where to put a given code change and in terms of periodic merging,
> > but I think that it's worth the cost. Otherwise, we essentially get
> > into a mode where we cannot do patch releases with any guarantees for
> > existing users.
> >
> > I think that probably a decent compromise policy is to branch
> > immediately, and then for people to do all work in trunk unless they
> > feel the urge to do otherwise. We could decide that we won't do bulk
> > merges from maintenance branches back to the trunk, so if people want
> > to create bugfix releases, they'll have to do the work to merge
> > patches from trunk to the branch on their own. In that environment,
> > we'd have an ad-hoc means to support patch releases without mandating
> > any additional work for OpenJPA contributors who are happy to consume
> > the trunk contents.
> >
> > -Patrick
> >
> > On 8/20/07, Michael Dick <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 8/20/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> We will create a "1.0.0" branch as per the existing release process
> >>> at http://openjpa.apache.org/releasing-openjpa.html , so that if
> >>> anyone objects to the release for technical reasons (e.g., misplaces
> >>> license file), we can make those repairs in the "1.0.0" branch and
> >>> then re-cut the release without worrying about other changes that
> >>> may
> >>> have been slipped into the trunk.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Whether or not we have a parent "1.0" branch to the "1.0.0" branch is
> >>> not something I have considered. Does anyone have any thoughts about
> >>> this? If so, we'll need to make it clear to people what work should
> >>> go into the "1.0" branch and what work should go into the trunk.
> >>> Since we don't have much of a long-term roadmap yet, it might make
> >>> sense to wait until we know which major features will go into
> >>> OpenJPA
> >>> 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, etc. However, I don't have strong objections to
> >>> making
> >>> a "1.0" branch.
> >>>
> >>> Thoughts?
> >>
> >>
> >> I'd prefer to wait until we have a roadmap in place. If we create
> >> a parent
> >> branch then we'll end up doing a lot of dual maintenance with
> >> trunk and 1.0.
> >> If/when we need to add new function which breaks backwards
> >> compatibility
> >> then we can create a branch for 1.x and go forward with 2.0.0 in
> >> trunk.
> >>
> >> The plan can change when we have a roadmap in place or have
> >> targetted JIRA
> >> issues for 1.1 vs 2.0.0.
> >>
> >> While creating the 1.0 parent branch is probably cleaner
> >> schematically I
> >> don't see a practical benefit unless there are changes coming that
> >> warrant a
> >> major release. Until we get to that point I'm content to play it
> >> by ear a
> >> bit. That's just MHO though.
> >>
> >> -Mike
> >>
> >> On Aug 20, 2007, at 6:20 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Well, I definitely don't think that work should happen in a branch
> >>>> called 1.0.0. Rather, it would seem that we would want to create a
> >>>> branch called 1.0, and tag from it.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think that we should make a 1.0 branch tonight, and then all
> >>>> future
> >>>> work in the 1.0 line will happen in it. So, if something goes wrong
> >>>> while building / voting on the release, we'll resolve those
> >>>> issues in
> >>>> the 1.0 branch, not in trunk. That way, people can keep on
> >>>> working on
> >>>> trunk, which will immediately become the 1.1 train.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Patrick
> >>>>
> >>>> On 8/20/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>> Patrick-
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I expect that we'll keep the "1.0.0" branch around, and then
> >>>>> make a
> >>>>> "1.0.0" tag once the release is cut and approved.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What happens with the "1.0.0" branch (i.e., if 1.0.1 work takes
> >>>>> place
> >>>>> in the 1.0.0 branch or in trunk) is, I believe, a topic that
> >>>>> has yet
> >>>>> to be discussed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Aug 20, 2007, at 1:42 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think that we should be making a permanent 1.0 branch, and then
> >>>>>> tag
> >>>>>> off of it, so that we have somewhere to work on 1.0.1. Or do
> >>>>>> things
> >>>>>> work differently in svn?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -Patrick
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 8/20/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>> OpenJPA Developers-
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Pursuant to the vote at http://www.nabble.com/-DISCUSS--set-a-
> >>>>>>> deadline-for-1.0.0-features-t4233167.html , a branch for OpenJPA
> >>>>>>> 1.0.0 will be created tonight at 11:59 PM EST, and a release
> >>>>>>> candidate will be immediately created for voting on the final
> >>>>>>> 1.0.0
> >>>>>>> release.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If anyone needs more time for essential bugfixes, now is the
> >>>>>>> time to
> >>>>>>> speak up.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Marc Prud'hommeaux
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Patrick Linskey
> >>>>>> 202 669 5907
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Patrick Linskey
> >>>> 202 669 5907
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Patrick Linskey
> > 202 669 5907
>
> 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: [REMINDER] 1.0.0 branch tonight
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
On Aug 21, 2007, at 8:31 AM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
>> The plan can change when we have a roadmap in place or have
>> targetted JIRA
>> issues for 1.1 vs 2.0.0.
>>
>> While creating the 1.0 parent branch is probably cleaner
>> schematically I
>> don't see a practical benefit unless there are changes coming that
>> warrant a
>> major release. Until we get to that point I'm content to play it
>> by ear a
>> bit. That's just MHO though.
>
> So in my opinion, both major and minor releases deserve to be on their
> own branches. In my experience, major and minor lines can be treated
> as equivalent from a SCM standpoint.
I agree. I don't see the need for basing 1.1.0 on 1.0.0. But the
continuation of 1.0.0 to 1.0.1, 1.0.2, etc should be on the 1.0.0
branch.
At some point we might want to start putting some major unstable
features into the code and make a branch for that work. But I think
we're pretty far from that point.
>
> I believe that we should branch immediately because I think that it is
> useful to limit the work in the 1.0.x line to bugfixes.
Yes.
> For example, I
> just committed a patch (a couple hours late) for OPENJPA-256. That
> patch can trivially be part of 1.0.1, but other new work that we do
> for other projects (for example, Ignacio's streaming-lob project)
> seems like it's higher-impact, and therefore should go into the 1.1
> line.
Which we can work on in the trunk.
Craig
>
> I agree that this means more thinking on our part, in order to work
> out where to put a given code change and in terms of periodic merging,
> but I think that it's worth the cost. Otherwise, we essentially get
> into a mode where we cannot do patch releases with any guarantees for
> existing users.
>
> I think that probably a decent compromise policy is to branch
> immediately, and then for people to do all work in trunk unless they
> feel the urge to do otherwise. We could decide that we won't do bulk
> merges from maintenance branches back to the trunk, so if people want
> to create bugfix releases, they'll have to do the work to merge
> patches from trunk to the branch on their own. In that environment,
> we'd have an ad-hoc means to support patch releases without mandating
> any additional work for OpenJPA contributors who are happy to consume
> the trunk contents.
>
> -Patrick
>
> On 8/20/07, Michael Dick <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 8/20/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> We will create a "1.0.0" branch as per the existing release process
>>> at http://openjpa.apache.org/releasing-openjpa.html , so that if
>>> anyone objects to the release for technical reasons (e.g., misplaces
>>> license file), we can make those repairs in the "1.0.0" branch and
>>> then re-cut the release without worrying about other changes that
>>> may
>>> have been slipped into the trunk.
>>
>>
>>
>> Whether or not we have a parent "1.0" branch to the "1.0.0" branch is
>>> not something I have considered. Does anyone have any thoughts about
>>> this? If so, we'll need to make it clear to people what work should
>>> go into the "1.0" branch and what work should go into the trunk.
>>> Since we don't have much of a long-term roadmap yet, it might make
>>> sense to wait until we know which major features will go into
>>> OpenJPA
>>> 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, etc. However, I don't have strong objections to
>>> making
>>> a "1.0" branch.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>> I'd prefer to wait until we have a roadmap in place. If we create
>> a parent
>> branch then we'll end up doing a lot of dual maintenance with
>> trunk and 1.0.
>> If/when we need to add new function which breaks backwards
>> compatibility
>> then we can create a branch for 1.x and go forward with 2.0.0 in
>> trunk.
>>
>> The plan can change when we have a roadmap in place or have
>> targetted JIRA
>> issues for 1.1 vs 2.0.0.
>>
>> While creating the 1.0 parent branch is probably cleaner
>> schematically I
>> don't see a practical benefit unless there are changes coming that
>> warrant a
>> major release. Until we get to that point I'm content to play it
>> by ear a
>> bit. That's just MHO though.
>>
>> -Mike
>>
>> On Aug 20, 2007, at 6:20 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, I definitely don't think that work should happen in a branch
>>>> called 1.0.0. Rather, it would seem that we would want to create a
>>>> branch called 1.0, and tag from it.
>>>>
>>>> I think that we should make a 1.0 branch tonight, and then all
>>>> future
>>>> work in the 1.0 line will happen in it. So, if something goes wrong
>>>> while building / voting on the release, we'll resolve those
>>>> issues in
>>>> the 1.0 branch, not in trunk. That way, people can keep on
>>>> working on
>>>> trunk, which will immediately become the 1.1 train.
>>>>
>>>> -Patrick
>>>>
>>>> On 8/20/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> Patrick-
>>>>>
>>>>> I expect that we'll keep the "1.0.0" branch around, and then
>>>>> make a
>>>>> "1.0.0" tag once the release is cut and approved.
>>>>>
>>>>> What happens with the "1.0.0" branch (i.e., if 1.0.1 work takes
>>>>> place
>>>>> in the 1.0.0 branch or in trunk) is, I believe, a topic that
>>>>> has yet
>>>>> to be discussed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 20, 2007, at 1:42 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that we should be making a permanent 1.0 branch, and then
>>>>>> tag
>>>>>> off of it, so that we have somewhere to work on 1.0.1. Or do
>>>>>> things
>>>>>> work differently in svn?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Patrick
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/20/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> OpenJPA Developers-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pursuant to the vote at http://www.nabble.com/-DISCUSS--set-a-
>>>>>>> deadline-for-1.0.0-features-t4233167.html , a branch for OpenJPA
>>>>>>> 1.0.0 will be created tonight at 11:59 PM EST, and a release
>>>>>>> candidate will be immediately created for voting on the final
>>>>>>> 1.0.0
>>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If anyone needs more time for essential bugfixes, now is the
>>>>>>> time to
>>>>>>> speak up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Marc Prud'hommeaux
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Patrick Linskey
>>>>>> 202 669 5907
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Patrick Linskey
>>>> 202 669 5907
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Patrick Linskey
> 202 669 5907
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: [REMINDER] 1.0.0 branch tonight
Posted by Patrick Linskey <pl...@gmail.com>.
> The plan can change when we have a roadmap in place or have targetted JIRA
> issues for 1.1 vs 2.0.0.
>
> While creating the 1.0 parent branch is probably cleaner schematically I
> don't see a practical benefit unless there are changes coming that warrant a
> major release. Until we get to that point I'm content to play it by ear a
> bit. That's just MHO though.
So in my opinion, both major and minor releases deserve to be on their
own branches. In my experience, major and minor lines can be treated
as equivalent from a SCM standpoint.
I believe that we should branch immediately because I think that it is
useful to limit the work in the 1.0.x line to bugfixes. For example, I
just committed a patch (a couple hours late) for OPENJPA-256. That
patch can trivially be part of 1.0.1, but other new work that we do
for other projects (for example, Ignacio's streaming-lob project)
seems like it's higher-impact, and therefore should go into the 1.1
line.
I agree that this means more thinking on our part, in order to work
out where to put a given code change and in terms of periodic merging,
but I think that it's worth the cost. Otherwise, we essentially get
into a mode where we cannot do patch releases with any guarantees for
existing users.
I think that probably a decent compromise policy is to branch
immediately, and then for people to do all work in trunk unless they
feel the urge to do otherwise. We could decide that we won't do bulk
merges from maintenance branches back to the trunk, so if people want
to create bugfix releases, they'll have to do the work to merge
patches from trunk to the branch on their own. In that environment,
we'd have an ad-hoc means to support patch releases without mandating
any additional work for OpenJPA contributors who are happy to consume
the trunk contents.
-Patrick
On 8/20/07, Michael Dick <mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/20/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > We will create a "1.0.0" branch as per the existing release process
> > at http://openjpa.apache.org/releasing-openjpa.html , so that if
> > anyone objects to the release for technical reasons (e.g., misplaces
> > license file), we can make those repairs in the "1.0.0" branch and
> > then re-cut the release without worrying about other changes that may
> > have been slipped into the trunk.
>
>
>
> Whether or not we have a parent "1.0" branch to the "1.0.0" branch is
> > not something I have considered. Does anyone have any thoughts about
> > this? If so, we'll need to make it clear to people what work should
> > go into the "1.0" branch and what work should go into the trunk.
> > Since we don't have much of a long-term roadmap yet, it might make
> > sense to wait until we know which major features will go into OpenJPA
> > 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, etc. However, I don't have strong objections to making
> > a "1.0" branch.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
>
> I'd prefer to wait until we have a roadmap in place. If we create a parent
> branch then we'll end up doing a lot of dual maintenance with trunk and 1.0.
> If/when we need to add new function which breaks backwards compatibility
> then we can create a branch for 1.x and go forward with 2.0.0 in trunk.
>
> The plan can change when we have a roadmap in place or have targetted JIRA
> issues for 1.1 vs 2.0.0.
>
> While creating the 1.0 parent branch is probably cleaner schematically I
> don't see a practical benefit unless there are changes coming that warrant a
> major release. Until we get to that point I'm content to play it by ear a
> bit. That's just MHO though.
>
> -Mike
>
> On Aug 20, 2007, at 6:20 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
> >
> > > Well, I definitely don't think that work should happen in a branch
> > > called 1.0.0. Rather, it would seem that we would want to create a
> > > branch called 1.0, and tag from it.
> > >
> > > I think that we should make a 1.0 branch tonight, and then all future
> > > work in the 1.0 line will happen in it. So, if something goes wrong
> > > while building / voting on the release, we'll resolve those issues in
> > > the 1.0 branch, not in trunk. That way, people can keep on working on
> > > trunk, which will immediately become the 1.1 train.
> > >
> > > -Patrick
> > >
> > > On 8/20/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >> Patrick-
> > >>
> > >> I expect that we'll keep the "1.0.0" branch around, and then make a
> > >> "1.0.0" tag once the release is cut and approved.
> > >>
> > >> What happens with the "1.0.0" branch (i.e., if 1.0.1 work takes place
> > >> in the 1.0.0 branch or in trunk) is, I believe, a topic that has yet
> > >> to be discussed.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Aug 20, 2007, at 1:42 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> I think that we should be making a permanent 1.0 branch, and then
> > >>> tag
> > >>> off of it, so that we have somewhere to work on 1.0.1. Or do things
> > >>> work differently in svn?
> > >>>
> > >>> -Patrick
> > >>>
> > >>> On 8/20/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>>> OpenJPA Developers-
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Pursuant to the vote at http://www.nabble.com/-DISCUSS--set-a-
> > >>>> deadline-for-1.0.0-features-t4233167.html , a branch for OpenJPA
> > >>>> 1.0.0 will be created tonight at 11:59 PM EST, and a release
> > >>>> candidate will be immediately created for voting on the final 1.0.0
> > >>>> release.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If anyone needs more time for essential bugfixes, now is the
> > >>>> time to
> > >>>> speak up.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Marc Prud'hommeaux
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Patrick Linskey
> > >>> 202 669 5907
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Patrick Linskey
> > > 202 669 5907
> >
> >
>
--
Patrick Linskey
202 669 5907
Re: [REMINDER] 1.0.0 branch tonight
Posted by Michael Dick <mi...@gmail.com>.
On 8/20/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> We will create a "1.0.0" branch as per the existing release process
> at http://openjpa.apache.org/releasing-openjpa.html , so that if
> anyone objects to the release for technical reasons (e.g., misplaces
> license file), we can make those repairs in the "1.0.0" branch and
> then re-cut the release without worrying about other changes that may
> have been slipped into the trunk.
Whether or not we have a parent "1.0" branch to the "1.0.0" branch is
> not something I have considered. Does anyone have any thoughts about
> this? If so, we'll need to make it clear to people what work should
> go into the "1.0" branch and what work should go into the trunk.
> Since we don't have much of a long-term roadmap yet, it might make
> sense to wait until we know which major features will go into OpenJPA
> 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, etc. However, I don't have strong objections to making
> a "1.0" branch.
>
> Thoughts?
I'd prefer to wait until we have a roadmap in place. If we create a parent
branch then we'll end up doing a lot of dual maintenance with trunk and 1.0.
If/when we need to add new function which breaks backwards compatibility
then we can create a branch for 1.x and go forward with 2.0.0 in trunk.
The plan can change when we have a roadmap in place or have targetted JIRA
issues for 1.1 vs 2.0.0.
While creating the 1.0 parent branch is probably cleaner schematically I
don't see a practical benefit unless there are changes coming that warrant a
major release. Until we get to that point I'm content to play it by ear a
bit. That's just MHO though.
-Mike
On Aug 20, 2007, at 6:20 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
>
> > Well, I definitely don't think that work should happen in a branch
> > called 1.0.0. Rather, it would seem that we would want to create a
> > branch called 1.0, and tag from it.
> >
> > I think that we should make a 1.0 branch tonight, and then all future
> > work in the 1.0 line will happen in it. So, if something goes wrong
> > while building / voting on the release, we'll resolve those issues in
> > the 1.0 branch, not in trunk. That way, people can keep on working on
> > trunk, which will immediately become the 1.1 train.
> >
> > -Patrick
> >
> > On 8/20/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> Patrick-
> >>
> >> I expect that we'll keep the "1.0.0" branch around, and then make a
> >> "1.0.0" tag once the release is cut and approved.
> >>
> >> What happens with the "1.0.0" branch (i.e., if 1.0.1 work takes place
> >> in the 1.0.0 branch or in trunk) is, I believe, a topic that has yet
> >> to be discussed.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Aug 20, 2007, at 1:42 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I think that we should be making a permanent 1.0 branch, and then
> >>> tag
> >>> off of it, so that we have somewhere to work on 1.0.1. Or do things
> >>> work differently in svn?
> >>>
> >>> -Patrick
> >>>
> >>> On 8/20/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>> OpenJPA Developers-
> >>>>
> >>>> Pursuant to the vote at http://www.nabble.com/-DISCUSS--set-a-
> >>>> deadline-for-1.0.0-features-t4233167.html , a branch for OpenJPA
> >>>> 1.0.0 will be created tonight at 11:59 PM EST, and a release
> >>>> candidate will be immediately created for voting on the final 1.0.0
> >>>> release.
> >>>>
> >>>> If anyone needs more time for essential bugfixes, now is the
> >>>> time to
> >>>> speak up.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Marc Prud'hommeaux
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Patrick Linskey
> >>> 202 669 5907
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Patrick Linskey
> > 202 669 5907
>
>
Re: [REMINDER] 1.0.0 branch tonight
Posted by Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org>.
We will create a "1.0.0" branch as per the existing release process
at http://openjpa.apache.org/releasing-openjpa.html , so that if
anyone objects to the release for technical reasons (e.g., misplaces
license file), we can make those repairs in the "1.0.0" branch and
then re-cut the release without worrying about other changes that may
have been slipped into the trunk.
Whether or not we have a parent "1.0" branch to the "1.0.0" branch is
not something I have considered. Does anyone have any thoughts about
this? If so, we'll need to make it clear to people what work should
go into the "1.0" branch and what work should go into the trunk.
Since we don't have much of a long-term roadmap yet, it might make
sense to wait until we know which major features will go into OpenJPA
1.1, 2.0, 3.0, etc. However, I don't have strong objections to making
a "1.0" branch.
Thoughts?
On Aug 20, 2007, at 6:20 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
> Well, I definitely don't think that work should happen in a branch
> called 1.0.0. Rather, it would seem that we would want to create a
> branch called 1.0, and tag from it.
>
> I think that we should make a 1.0 branch tonight, and then all future
> work in the 1.0 line will happen in it. So, if something goes wrong
> while building / voting on the release, we'll resolve those issues in
> the 1.0 branch, not in trunk. That way, people can keep on working on
> trunk, which will immediately become the 1.1 train.
>
> -Patrick
>
> On 8/20/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Patrick-
>>
>> I expect that we'll keep the "1.0.0" branch around, and then make a
>> "1.0.0" tag once the release is cut and approved.
>>
>> What happens with the "1.0.0" branch (i.e., if 1.0.1 work takes place
>> in the 1.0.0 branch or in trunk) is, I believe, a topic that has yet
>> to be discussed.
>>
>>
>> On Aug 20, 2007, at 1:42 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I think that we should be making a permanent 1.0 branch, and then
>>> tag
>>> off of it, so that we have somewhere to work on 1.0.1. Or do things
>>> work differently in svn?
>>>
>>> -Patrick
>>>
>>> On 8/20/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> OpenJPA Developers-
>>>>
>>>> Pursuant to the vote at http://www.nabble.com/-DISCUSS--set-a-
>>>> deadline-for-1.0.0-features-t4233167.html , a branch for OpenJPA
>>>> 1.0.0 will be created tonight at 11:59 PM EST, and a release
>>>> candidate will be immediately created for voting on the final 1.0.0
>>>> release.
>>>>
>>>> If anyone needs more time for essential bugfixes, now is the
>>>> time to
>>>> speak up.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Marc Prud'hommeaux
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Patrick Linskey
>>> 202 669 5907
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Patrick Linskey
> 202 669 5907
Re: [REMINDER] 1.0.0 branch tonight
Posted by Patrick Linskey <pl...@gmail.com>.
Well, I definitely don't think that work should happen in a branch
called 1.0.0. Rather, it would seem that we would want to create a
branch called 1.0, and tag from it.
I think that we should make a 1.0 branch tonight, and then all future
work in the 1.0 line will happen in it. So, if something goes wrong
while building / voting on the release, we'll resolve those issues in
the 1.0 branch, not in trunk. That way, people can keep on working on
trunk, which will immediately become the 1.1 train.
-Patrick
On 8/20/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
> Patrick-
>
> I expect that we'll keep the "1.0.0" branch around, and then make a
> "1.0.0" tag once the release is cut and approved.
>
> What happens with the "1.0.0" branch (i.e., if 1.0.1 work takes place
> in the 1.0.0 branch or in trunk) is, I believe, a topic that has yet
> to be discussed.
>
>
> On Aug 20, 2007, at 1:42 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think that we should be making a permanent 1.0 branch, and then tag
> > off of it, so that we have somewhere to work on 1.0.1. Or do things
> > work differently in svn?
> >
> > -Patrick
> >
> > On 8/20/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> OpenJPA Developers-
> >>
> >> Pursuant to the vote at http://www.nabble.com/-DISCUSS--set-a-
> >> deadline-for-1.0.0-features-t4233167.html , a branch for OpenJPA
> >> 1.0.0 will be created tonight at 11:59 PM EST, and a release
> >> candidate will be immediately created for voting on the final 1.0.0
> >> release.
> >>
> >> If anyone needs more time for essential bugfixes, now is the time to
> >> speak up.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Marc Prud'hommeaux
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Patrick Linskey
> > 202 669 5907
>
>
--
Patrick Linskey
202 669 5907
Re: [REMINDER] 1.0.0 branch tonight
Posted by Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org>.
Patrick-
I expect that we'll keep the "1.0.0" branch around, and then make a
"1.0.0" tag once the release is cut and approved.
What happens with the "1.0.0" branch (i.e., if 1.0.1 work takes place
in the 1.0.0 branch or in trunk) is, I believe, a topic that has yet
to be discussed.
On Aug 20, 2007, at 1:42 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think that we should be making a permanent 1.0 branch, and then tag
> off of it, so that we have somewhere to work on 1.0.1. Or do things
> work differently in svn?
>
> -Patrick
>
> On 8/20/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
>> OpenJPA Developers-
>>
>> Pursuant to the vote at http://www.nabble.com/-DISCUSS--set-a-
>> deadline-for-1.0.0-features-t4233167.html , a branch for OpenJPA
>> 1.0.0 will be created tonight at 11:59 PM EST, and a release
>> candidate will be immediately created for voting on the final 1.0.0
>> release.
>>
>> If anyone needs more time for essential bugfixes, now is the time to
>> speak up.
>>
>> --
>> Marc Prud'hommeaux
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Patrick Linskey
> 202 669 5907
Re: [REMINDER] 1.0.0 branch tonight
Posted by Patrick Linskey <pl...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
I think that we should be making a permanent 1.0 branch, and then tag
off of it, so that we have somewhere to work on 1.0.1. Or do things
work differently in svn?
-Patrick
On 8/20/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux <mp...@apache.org> wrote:
> OpenJPA Developers-
>
> Pursuant to the vote at http://www.nabble.com/-DISCUSS--set-a-
> deadline-for-1.0.0-features-t4233167.html , a branch for OpenJPA
> 1.0.0 will be created tonight at 11:59 PM EST, and a release
> candidate will be immediately created for voting on the final 1.0.0
> release.
>
> If anyone needs more time for essential bugfixes, now is the time to
> speak up.
>
> --
> Marc Prud'hommeaux
>
>
>
--
Patrick Linskey
202 669 5907