You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@continuum.apache.org by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> on 2008/03/04 00:32:56 UTC
Re: Confused about the branches
On 29/02/2008, at 10:04 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 29/02/2008, at 9:52 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
>>
>>> why 1.1.x?
>>
>> in case there was a bugfix release on 1.1? I thought that was what
>> the
>> branch was for... maintenance of 1.1.
>>
>> or is there going to be 2 completely different strands of
>> development?
>
>
> I thought to do 1.x in the branch instead of only maintenance in
> 1.1.xbecause I don't know how many time we'll need for the first
> 2.0 release. User will probably need some new small feature before the
> 2.0release and not only maintenance.
With the roadmap discussion recently, I thought it was going to be an
incremental move towards 2.0 on trunk - 1.2 will have some parts and
refactorings, 1.3, 1.4 and so on. I'm not sure why there would need to
be two streams of development? I think there's a real danger of
getting lost in the 2.0 trap (c.f. Maven 1.0, Maven 2.0 and Maven 2.1 :)
I'm actually keen to do a couple of small things myself and get a
release out:
- a few small bug fixes, like the lost change sets for some builds
- better error handling
- switch to a Jetty runtime without the plexus appserver so we can use
jetty 6
- add a call to svn info --xml to check whether to do an svn update to
speed up working copy updates
Just stuff I see from running vmbuild and the maven zone.
I think that and a couple of other refactorings that are being
discussed on here would make a good 1.2 in the next couple of months.
WDYT?
- Brett
--
Brett Porter
brett@apache.org
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
Re: Confused about the branches
Posted by Rahul Thakur <ra...@gmail.com>.
Olivier Lamy wrote:
> 2008/3/12, Wendy Smoak<ws...@gmail.com>:
>> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Olivier Lamy<ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > > ...and delete the continuum-1.x branch?
>> > >
>> >
>> > Done.
>> >
>> > What about the others ? :
>> > - continuum-1.0.x/
>> > - continuum-site_1.1/
>>
>>
>> I'm sure the site branch can go, if everything has been merged.
> Done.
>> I'm undecided on the 1.0.x branch... are there any changes from the
>> last 1.0 release tag?
>
> IMHO we can remove that too.
>
> Do we have to do some cleanup in the sandbox ?
If we do decide to cleanup sandbox, please leave
'continuum-eclipse-plugin' module, I intend to get back to it.
Cheers,
Rahul
>
>> --
>>
>> Wendy
>>
>
Re: Confused about the branches
Posted by Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>.
2008/3/12, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > > ...and delete the continuum-1.x branch?
> > >
> >
> > Done.
> >
> > What about the others ? :
> > - continuum-1.0.x/
> > - continuum-site_1.1/
>
>
> I'm sure the site branch can go, if everything has been merged.
Done.
>
> I'm undecided on the 1.0.x branch... are there any changes from the
> last 1.0 release tag?
IMHO we can remove that too.
Do we have to do some cleanup in the sandbox ?
>
> --
>
> Wendy
>
Re: Confused about the branches
Posted by Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> > ...and delete the continuum-1.x branch?
> >
>
> Done.
>
> What about the others ? :
> - continuum-1.0.x/
> - continuum-site_1.1/
I'm sure the site branch can go, if everything has been merged.
I'm undecided on the 1.0.x branch... are there any changes from the
last 1.0 release tag?
--
Wendy
Re: Confused about the branches
Posted by Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>.
2008/3/12, Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > It looks we don't have any objections/opinions.
> > All changes from branch has been merged.
> > I will rename the version in the trunk to 1.2 (tomorow).
>
>
> ...and delete the continuum-1.x branch?
>
Done.
What about the others ? :
- continuum-1.0.x/
- continuum-site_1.1/
> --
>
> Wendy
>
Re: Confused about the branches
Posted by Wendy Smoak <ws...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org> wrote:
> It looks we don't have any objections/opinions.
> All changes from branch has been merged.
> I will rename the version in the trunk to 1.2 (tomorow).
...and delete the continuum-1.x branch?
--
Wendy
Re: Confused about the branches
Posted by Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>.
2008/3/4, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>:
>
> On 05/03/2008, at 5:18 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
>
> > 2008/3/4, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>:
> >>
> >> On 04/03/2008, at 10:47 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> >>
> >>> Agree on this.
> >>> Currently there is a blocking issue with xml-rpc CONTINUUM-1590
> >>> which
> >>> prevent using xml-rpc :-(.
> >>
> >>
> >> Cool - shall we just start using the 1.2 bucket in JIRA? There are
> >> only 14 issues there now so maybe we could keep that to 20-30 issues
> >> all together and release it.
> >
> > +1
>
>
> ok, I'll get my stuff in there
>
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> I found these changes on trunk that are not on the branch: r617400.
> >> (The rest is documentation)
> >>
> >> I found these changes on the branch that are not on trunk: r627196,
> >> r620613, r620612, r620611
> >>
> >> I think we should just merge all those from the branch to trunk, set
> >> it as v1.2, and close the branch for now?
> >
> > +1. (Perso, I don't really like the idea of starting a parrallel
> > branch/trunk "a la" mvn 2.1 :-) )
>
>
> I'll merge the changes to trunk - but will wait to hear other's
> opinions on this too before changing the branch
It looks we don't have any objections/opinions.
All changes from branch has been merged.
I will rename the version in the trunk to 1.2 (tomorow).
>
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> If no objections, I will change root pom to not have anymore maven
> >>> pom
> >>> as parent.
> >>
> >>
> >> Sounds good - do you think we should have a Continuum parent POM like
> >> we do for Archiva?
> >
> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/continuum/parent/trunk ?
> > A new pom without parent ? (I can certainly copy some contents from
> > the maven parent pom)
>
>
> With an ASF parent instead of the Maven one, yep.
>
>
> >
> >
> > Question : do we have to change the groupId in the poms :
> > org.apache.maven.continuum -> org.apache.continuum ( java package too
> > ? looks a big bang)
>
>
> I don't see any downside to doing this :)
>
>
> - Brett
>
>
> --
> Brett Porter
> brett@apache.org
> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>
>
Re: Confused about the branches
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
On 05/03/2008, at 5:18 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> 2008/3/4, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>:
>>
>> On 04/03/2008, at 10:47 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
>>
>>> Agree on this.
>>> Currently there is a blocking issue with xml-rpc CONTINUUM-1590
>>> which
>>> prevent using xml-rpc :-(.
>>
>>
>> Cool - shall we just start using the 1.2 bucket in JIRA? There are
>> only 14 issues there now so maybe we could keep that to 20-30 issues
>> all together and release it.
>
> +1
ok, I'll get my stuff in there
>
>
>>
>> I found these changes on trunk that are not on the branch: r617400.
>> (The rest is documentation)
>>
>> I found these changes on the branch that are not on trunk: r627196,
>> r620613, r620612, r620611
>>
>> I think we should just merge all those from the branch to trunk, set
>> it as v1.2, and close the branch for now?
>
> +1. (Perso, I don't really like the idea of starting a parrallel
> branch/trunk "a la" mvn 2.1 :-) )
I'll merge the changes to trunk - but will wait to hear other's
opinions on this too before changing the branch
>
>
>>
>>
>>> If no objections, I will change root pom to not have anymore maven
>>> pom
>>> as parent.
>>
>>
>> Sounds good - do you think we should have a Continuum parent POM like
>> we do for Archiva?
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/continuum/parent/trunk ?
> A new pom without parent ? (I can certainly copy some contents from
> the maven parent pom)
With an ASF parent instead of the Maven one, yep.
>
>
> Question : do we have to change the groupId in the poms :
> org.apache.maven.continuum -> org.apache.continuum ( java package too
> ? looks a big bang)
I don't see any downside to doing this :)
- Brett
--
Brett Porter
brett@apache.org
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
Re: Confused about the branches
Posted by Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>.
2008/3/4, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>:
>
> On 04/03/2008, at 10:47 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
>
> > Agree on this.
> > Currently there is a blocking issue with xml-rpc CONTINUUM-1590 which
> > prevent using xml-rpc :-(.
>
>
> Cool - shall we just start using the 1.2 bucket in JIRA? There are
> only 14 issues there now so maybe we could keep that to 20-30 issues
> all together and release it.
+1
>
> I found these changes on trunk that are not on the branch: r617400.
> (The rest is documentation)
>
> I found these changes on the branch that are not on trunk: r627196,
> r620613, r620612, r620611
>
> I think we should just merge all those from the branch to trunk, set
> it as v1.2, and close the branch for now?
+1. (Perso, I don't really like the idea of starting a parrallel
branch/trunk "a la" mvn 2.1 :-) )
>
>
> > If no objections, I will change root pom to not have anymore maven pom
> > as parent.
>
>
> Sounds good - do you think we should have a Continuum parent POM like
> we do for Archiva?
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/continuum/parent/trunk ?
A new pom without parent ? (I can certainly copy some contents from
the maven parent pom)
Question : do we have to change the groupId in the poms :
org.apache.maven.continuum -> org.apache.continuum ( java package too
? looks a big bang)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brett
>
> --
> Brett Porter
> brett@apache.org
> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>
>
Re: Confused about the branches
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
On 04/03/2008, at 10:47 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> Agree on this.
> Currently there is a blocking issue with xml-rpc CONTINUUM-1590 which
> prevent using xml-rpc :-(.
Cool - shall we just start using the 1.2 bucket in JIRA? There are
only 14 issues there now so maybe we could keep that to 20-30 issues
all together and release it.
I found these changes on trunk that are not on the branch: r617400.
(The rest is documentation)
I found these changes on the branch that are not on trunk: r627196,
r620613, r620612, r620611
I think we should just merge all those from the branch to trunk, set
it as v1.2, and close the branch for now?
> If no objections, I will change root pom to not have anymore maven pom
> as parent.
Sounds good - do you think we should have a Continuum parent POM like
we do for Archiva?
Cheers,
Brett
--
Brett Porter
brett@apache.org
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
Re: Confused about the branches
Posted by Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>.
Agree on this.
Currently there is a blocking issue with xml-rpc CONTINUUM-1590 which
prevent using xml-rpc :-(.
If no objections, I will change root pom to not have anymore maven pom
as parent.
--
Olivier
2008/3/4, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>:
>
> On 29/02/2008, at 10:04 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On 29/02/2008, at 9:52 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
> >>
> >>> why 1.1.x?
> >>
> >> in case there was a bugfix release on 1.1? I thought that was what
> >> the
> >> branch was for... maintenance of 1.1.
> >>
> >> or is there going to be 2 completely different strands of
> >> development?
> >
> >
> > I thought to do 1.x in the branch instead of only maintenance in
> > 1.1.xbecause I don't know how many time we'll need for the first
> > 2.0 release. User will probably need some new small feature before the
> > 2.0release and not only maintenance.
>
> With the roadmap discussion recently, I thought it was going to be an
> incremental move towards 2.0 on trunk - 1.2 will have some parts and
> refactorings, 1.3, 1.4 and so on. I'm not sure why there would need to
> be two streams of development? I think there's a real danger of
> getting lost in the 2.0 trap (c.f. Maven 1.0, Maven 2.0 and Maven 2.1 :)
>
> I'm actually keen to do a couple of small things myself and get a
> release out:
> - a few small bug fixes, like the lost change sets for some builds
> - better error handling
> - switch to a Jetty runtime without the plexus appserver so we can use
> jetty 6
> - add a call to svn info --xml to check whether to do an svn update to
> speed up working copy updates
>
> Just stuff I see from running vmbuild and the maven zone.
>
> I think that and a couple of other refactorings that are being
> discussed on here would make a good 1.2 in the next couple of months.
> WDYT?
>
> - Brett
>
>
> --
> Brett Porter
> brett@apache.org
> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>
>
Re: Confused about the branches
Posted by Rahul Thakur <ra...@gmail.com>.
Brett Porter wrote:
>
> On 29/02/2008, at 10:04 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 29/02/2008, at 9:52 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
>>>
>>>> why 1.1.x?
>>>
>>> in case there was a bugfix release on 1.1? I thought that was what the
>>> branch was for... maintenance of 1.1.
>>>
>>> or is there going to be 2 completely different strands of development?
>>
>>
>> I thought to do 1.x in the branch instead of only maintenance in
>> 1.1.xbecause I don't know how many time we'll need for the first
>> 2.0 release. User will probably need some new small feature before the
>> 2.0release and not only maintenance.
>
> With the roadmap discussion recently, I thought it was going to be an
> incremental move towards 2.0 on trunk - 1.2 will have some parts and
> refactorings, 1.3, 1.4 and so on. I'm not sure why there would need to
> be two streams of development? I think there's a real danger of getting
> lost in the 2.0 trap (c.f. Maven 1.0, Maven 2.0 and Maven 2.1 :)
We haven't pegged any version numbers to the tasks extracted from the
roadmap discussion. I think we should consider what architecture rework
we intend to do (and impact), and if it merits keeping 2 streams (or not).
>
> I'm actually keen to do a couple of small things myself and get a
> release out:
> - a few small bug fixes, like the lost change sets for some builds
> - better error handling
> - switch to a Jetty runtime without the plexus appserver so we can use
> jetty 6
> - add a call to svn info --xml to check whether to do an svn update to
> speed up working copy updates
>
I agree on getting something out frequently. Having said that if there
is a consensus on 2 streams then I think we need to keep the momentum up
on both to get releases/milestones out there.
> Just stuff I see from running vmbuild and the maven zone.
>
> I think that and a couple of other refactorings that are being discussed
> on here would make a good 1.2 in the next couple of months. WDYT?
>
> - Brett
>
> --
> Brett Porter
> brett@apache.org
> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>
>
Cheers,
Rahul