You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@turbine.apache.org by Rafal Krzewski <Ra...@e-point.pl> on 2001/04/03 20:48:41 UTC
[PROPOSAL] pre-release branch
On yesterday, I posted a proposal for creating a "stable" branch
of Turbine early (I mean ASAP) and about plans of e-point to
support the Turbine release, once it happens. I think that some
of you may have missed it, because it was buried in the ECS
Survey thread. Thus, I allowed myself to repost the pretty
ascii picture and my explanations.
+-"2.2"--------------->
|
----"2.1-unreleased"---+--------------+-----------"HEAD"---->
|
+-"2.1"------------------------------>
May 1 July 1 <- there was a mistake
in the previous post!
1) We want a "stable" branch of the codebase to appear fairly quickly.
2) The rationale for creating the 2.1 branch is supporting the existing
application base and downstream projects (Hi, Jetspeeders!) during
the
crafting of a "real" release.
3) Before the 2.1 branch is created, code base should go throug at least
two weeks of 'cool down' period when only bugfixes are checked in.
3) During the following two months, we would like refactor the certain
core parts of Turbine (I'll post our proposal of changes during the
next two weeks, and we'll discuss it)
4) The 2.2 branch should happen at the time when Turbine codebase meets
the requirements we had set forth in OneWebNG papers. Why? Because
e-point will actively support this branch. A person will be paid for
follow the development of codebase trunk, and backport any bugfixes
that will affect the branch, gather bug reports for users and fix
anything that will not require breaking existing code.
5) The estimated duration of our active support to this branch would be
at least six months, we expect that next major release of Turbine
will
happen during that time. The 2.2 branch should also become really
solid
by then, given all the testing and feature freeze.
6) We should decide if TDK should be built on 'most recent stable' or
'HEAD'
7) We should create a comprehensive summary of all threads of
development that are going on now, decide it we should continue with
them or put them on hold and make list of features that we want to be
present in '2.1' and '2.2' branches.
*********************************************************************
Now. Jon's proposal is like that:
+-"2.1"--------------->
|
----"2.1-unreleased"------------------+-----------"HEAD"---->
June 4
As we see, the estimated branching point in Jon's plan is one month
later than in our, and one month earlier that we would like to see
the "full" release, cleaned up and with enchanced functionality.
So my proposal no 2. is making a feature freeze for Turbine trunk
really soon (one, two weeks) and going through ~6 weeks of bug fixing,
code polishing and documetation updates.
At the same time 2.2-dev branch could be started, and new features
would be developed therein in collaborative fashion, and after the
release the branch would be merged back into the trunk. Hopefuly
we would be able to release 2.2 later in June.
How does this sound like?
Please give your feedback.
Rafal
--
Rafal Krzewski
Senior Internet Developer
mailto:Rafal.Krzewski@e-point.pl
+48 22 8534830 http://e-point.pl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] pre-release branch
Posted by Daniel Rall <dl...@finemaltcoding.com>.
Josh Lucas <jo...@stonecottage.com> writes:
> On the other hand, I would definitely be +1 on having a 2.1 branch which
> would have the feature freeze, bug fixes and overall polishing. This is
> definitely something that is needed. Once a bug is found and fixed, it
> should be done first in the HEAD and then the patch should be reviewed
> and put into the branch by either the release manager or those who have
> been deemed 'worthy' of that responsibility.
+1, great description Josh.
Daniel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] pre-release branch
Posted by Josh Lucas <jo...@stonecottage.com>.
Rafal Krzewski wrote:
>
[snip]
> So my proposal no 2. is making a feature freeze for Turbine trunk
> really soon (one, two weeks) and going through ~6 weeks of bug fixing,
> code polishing and documetation updates.
>
> At the same time 2.2-dev branch could be started, and new features
> would be developed therein in collaborative fashion, and after the
> release the branch would be merged back into the trunk. Hopefuly
> we would be able to release 2.2 later in June.
>
> How does this sound like?
>
I realize others have said this but I wanted to put in my $.02..
I would be -1 on a feature freeze to the trunk especially for the
duration you are talking about. The HEAD of the trunk should always be
viewed as experiemental and developmental in my opinion.
On the other hand, I would definitely be +1 on having a 2.1 branch which
would have the feature freeze, bug fixes and overall polishing. This is
definitely something that is needed. Once a bug is found and fixed, it
should be done first in the HEAD and then the patch should be reviewed
and put into the branch by either the release manager or those who have
been deemed 'worthy' of that responsibility.
josh
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] pre-release branch
Posted by Jason van Zyl <jv...@apache.org>.
Rafal Krzewski wrote:
>
> On yesterday, I posted a proposal for creating a "stable" branch
> of Turbine early (I mean ASAP) and about plans of e-point to
> support the Turbine release, once it happens. I think that some
> of you may have missed it, because it was buried in the ECS
> Survey thread. Thus, I allowed myself to repost the pretty
> ascii picture and my explanations.
>
> +-"2.2"--------------->
> |
> ----"2.1-unreleased"---+--------------+-----------"HEAD"---->
> |
> +-"2.1"------------------------------>
>
> May 1 July 1 <- there was a mistake
> in the previous post!
>
> 1) We want a "stable" branch of the codebase to appear fairly quickly.
I agree. The question is how quickly. I have been working with a JavaOne
release in mind. A freeze about 4 weeks before the the release and then
bug
fix, document that code before the release. I'll look below, I think
this
is in line with what Jon has.
> 2) The rationale for creating the 2.1 branch is supporting the existing
> application base and downstream projects (Hi, Jetspeeders!) during
> the
> crafting of a "real" release.
I'm not sure what your planned changes are in the core, but I think
we could have a "real" release by JavaOne. Once all the proposals
are on the table it will be more clear.
> 3) Before the 2.1 branch is created, code base should go throug at least
> two weeks of 'cool down' period when only bugfixes are checked in.
>
> 3) During the following two months, we would like refactor the certain
> core parts of Turbine (I'll post our proposal of changes during the
> next two weeks, and we'll discuss it)
I guess the duration required depends on these changes. Once you post
your proposals then we'll have a better idea. I will try and get some
proposals up to.
> 4) The 2.2 branch should happen at the time when Turbine codebase meets
> the requirements we had set forth in OneWebNG papers.
Where is the OneWebNG paper? What is that?
> Why? Because
> e-point will actively support this branch. A person will be paid for
> follow the development of codebase trunk, and backport any bugfixes
> that will affect the branch, gather bug reports for users and fix
> anything that will not require breaking existing code.
> 5) The estimated duration of our active support to this branch would be
> at least six months, we expect that next major release of Turbine
> will
> happen during that time. The 2.2 branch should also become really
> solid
> by then, given all the testing and feature freeze.
>
> 6) We should decide if TDK should be built on 'most recent stable' or
> 'HEAD'
>
> 7) We should create a comprehensive summary of all threads of
> development that are going on now, decide it we should continue with
> them or put them on hold and make list of features that we want to be
> present in '2.1' and '2.2' branches.
I started last night, I will try to post something comprehensible
tomorrow.
> *********************************************************************
>
> Now. Jon's proposal is like that:
> +-"2.1"--------------->
> |
> ----"2.1-unreleased"------------------+-----------"HEAD"---->
>
> June 4
I like the idea of pushing for a JavaOne release. This has been
the plan for a while. We have about 8 weeks to get something
stable together for JavaOne and I would still like to shoot
for this. Maybe this is unrealistic. The list I have is getting
very big!
Maybe we should get together in the #turbine chat room for a little
meeting and discuss some of these issues?
> As we see, the estimated branching point in Jon's plan is one month
> later than in our, and one month earlier that we would like to see
> the "full" release, cleaned up and with enchanced functionality.
>
> So my proposal no 2. is making a feature freeze for Turbine trunk
> really soon (one, two weeks) and going through ~6 weeks of bug fixing,
> code polishing and documetation updates.
> At the same time 2.2-dev branch could be started, and new features
> would be developed therein in collaborative fashion, and after the
> release the branch would be merged back into the trunk. Hopefuly
> we would be able to release 2.2 later in June.
>
> How does this sound like?
Your proposal no.2 might be more practical but I would really like
to get "real" release ready for JavaOne. Again, I think this will be
more discernable when all the proposals are on the table.
> Please give your feedback.
I think we have to have all the proposals before we can make
a decision. I will try to get the ones I have together in xdoc
form so they can be reviewed.
> Rafal
>
> --
> Rafal Krzewski
> Senior Internet Developer
> mailto:Rafal.Krzewski@e-point.pl
> +48 22 8534830 http://e-point.pl
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
--
jvz.
Jason van Zyl
jvanzyl@apache.org
http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity
http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine
http://tambora.zenplex.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] pre-release branch
Posted by Daniel Rall <dl...@collab.net>.
Magn~s ?~r Torfason <ma...@handtolvur.is> writes:
> Rafal,
>
> I am leaning towards your original idea regarding the 2.1 branch.
> Theoretically it is not so different from your second proposal of creating a
> 2.2-dev branch, but from a practical standpoint I think it would be easier
> to impose a feature freeze on a branch than on the head.
Indeed, HEAD should be the development branch. Sprout a stable 2.1
branch and start tagging release candidates on that branch. Other
than this, I'm +1.
Daniel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: [PROPOSAL] pre-release branch
Posted by Magnús ?ór Torfason <ma...@handtolvur.is>.
Rafal,
I am leaning towards your original idea regarding the 2.1 branch.
Theoretically it is not so different from your second proposal of creating a
2.2-dev branch, but from a practical standpoint I think it would be easier
to impose a feature freeze on a branch than on the head.
Magnus
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fil [mailto:fil]On Behalf Of Rafal Krzewski
> Sent: 3. apríl 2001 18:49
> To: turbine-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: [PROPOSAL] pre-release branch
>
>
> On yesterday, I posted a proposal for creating a "stable" branch
> of Turbine early (I mean ASAP) and about plans of e-point to
> support the Turbine release, once it happens. I think that some
> of you may have missed it, because it was buried in the ECS
> Survey thread. Thus, I allowed myself to repost the pretty
> ascii picture and my explanations.
>
>
>
> +-"2.2"--------------->
> |
> ----"2.1-unreleased"---+--------------+-----------"HEAD"---->
> |
> +-"2.1"------------------------------>
>
> May 1 July 1 <- there was a mistake
> in the previous post!
>
>
>
> 1) We want a "stable" branch of the codebase to appear fairly quickly.
>
> 2) The rationale for creating the 2.1 branch is supporting the existing
> application base and downstream projects (Hi, Jetspeeders!) during
> the
> crafting of a "real" release.
>
> 3) Before the 2.1 branch is created, code base should go throug at least
> two weeks of 'cool down' period when only bugfixes are checked in.
>
> 3) During the following two months, we would like refactor the certain
> core parts of Turbine (I'll post our proposal of changes during the
> next two weeks, and we'll discuss it)
>
> 4) The 2.2 branch should happen at the time when Turbine codebase meets
> the requirements we had set forth in OneWebNG papers. Why? Because
> e-point will actively support this branch. A person will be paid for
> follow the development of codebase trunk, and backport any bugfixes
> that will affect the branch, gather bug reports for users and fix
> anything that will not require breaking existing code.
>
> 5) The estimated duration of our active support to this branch would be
> at least six months, we expect that next major release of Turbine
> will
> happen during that time. The 2.2 branch should also become really
> solid
> by then, given all the testing and feature freeze.
>
> 6) We should decide if TDK should be built on 'most recent stable' or
> 'HEAD'
>
> 7) We should create a comprehensive summary of all threads of
> development that are going on now, decide it we should continue with
> them or put them on hold and make list of features that we want to be
> present in '2.1' and '2.2' branches.
>
> *********************************************************************
>
>
> Now. Jon's proposal is like that:
> +-"2.1"--------------->
> |
> ----"2.1-unreleased"------------------+-----------"HEAD"---->
>
> June 4
>
> As we see, the estimated branching point in Jon's plan is one month
> later than in our, and one month earlier that we would like to see
> the "full" release, cleaned up and with enchanced functionality.
>
> So my proposal no 2. is making a feature freeze for Turbine trunk
> really soon (one, two weeks) and going through ~6 weeks of bug fixing,
> code polishing and documetation updates.
>
> At the same time 2.2-dev branch could be started, and new features
> would be developed therein in collaborative fashion, and after the
> release the branch would be merged back into the trunk. Hopefuly
> we would be able to release 2.2 later in June.
>
> How does this sound like?
>
> Please give your feedback.
>
> Rafal
>
> --
> Rafal Krzewski
> Senior Internet Developer
> mailto:Rafal.Krzewski@e-point.pl
> +48 22 8534830 http://e-point.pl
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [PROPOSAL] pre-release branch
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 4/3/01 11:48 AM, "Rafal Krzewski" <Ra...@e-point.pl> wrote:
> How does this sound like?
>
> Please give your feedback.
>
> Rafal
Rafal,
You are pushing this to make it happen. I'm not going to stand in the way at
all and I trust you to make it happen. I'm totally +1 and will only speak up
for corrections.
:-)
Go for it.
-jon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: turbine-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: turbine-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org