You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by David Blevins <da...@visi.com> on 2006/06/22 03:52:22 UTC
[VOTE] Release branching process (was Re: Life After 1.1 - starting the new branch for 1.1.1 - some logistics and your input requested.)
We had this whole conversation last week, lots of good discussion was
had. I'd prefer not to have to have it again. Here is my exact
understanding of our consensus and would like to put it to a vote to
avoid reinterpretation of that consensus in the future.
1. branches/x.y would be the branch for all x.y.z releases
2. when a release is frozen, we spin off a branch with that *exact*
name, as in branches/x.y.z, where z starts at zero and increments
by one.
3. at that time branches/x.y is immediately updated to version
x.y.(z+1)-SNAPSHOT
3. We cut releases from the frozen branch
4. When a release passes final tck testing and final vote, the
frozen branch is moved to tags
We create a branch at freeze time for the following reasons:
1. it takes *at least* one week from freeze to ship due to voting,
tck testing and potential repeats of that process (re-cut,
re-certify, re-vote). There is no reason why work on x.y.z+1
needs to be delayed -- only 52 weeks a year.
2. stronger guarantee no one is updating the branch once frozen
3. less likely that people and ci systems (continuum) will checkout
and build pre-release versions of x.y.z (not x.y.z-SNAPSHOT) which
would need to be removed manually and may accidentally be
distributed.
4. it is currently very difficult to roll version numbers forward,
entries here and there are often missed. Far better to have
branches/x.y have a few straggling old x.y.z-SNAPSHOT versions
than a few overlooked x.y.z final numbers that needed to go back
to SNAPSHOT -- they never leave SNAPSHOT and need to be reverted
back later if that process happens in the frozen branch.
Here is my +1
--
David
On Jun 21, 2006, at 4:14 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> After the branches/1.1 was moved to tags there was some question as
> to what happened to the 1.1 branch. At that time some kind soul
> created a new branches/1.1.1. No activity has occurred in that
> branch and given that we'll need to define the release goals of
> 1.1.1 soon I'd like to propose the following.
>
> After 1.1 is released:
>
> * Delete branches/1.1.1
> * Move branches/1.1.0 to tags/1.1.0
> * Copy tags/1.1.0 to branches/1.1.1
> * Update branches 1.1.1 to be 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT
> * Start working on 1.1.1
>
> When 1.1.1 enters time for release
>
> * Move branches/1.1.1 to branches/1.1.1.0
> * Change version from 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT to 1.1.1
> * Create release candidate rc1
> * put out for a vote
> * get a successful vote with no respins :)
> * move from branches/1.1.1.0 to tags/1.1.1.0
>
> Based on all the confusion in the past I think this procedure makes
> it clear what phase were in for the release as well as avoids
> tagging and branching repeatedly.
>
> I'm looking for lazy consensus and not a formal vote.
>
> Matt
>
Re: [VOTE] Release branching process (was Re: Life After 1.1 - starting the new branch for 1.1.1 - some logistics and your input requested.)
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
+1
-dain
On Jun 21, 2006, at 7:06 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> +1
>
> I think that we should mention that patches that go into
>
> x.y.z also go into x.y and trunk
> x.y also go into trunk
>
> Last time we neglected to apply patches evenly across the board
> when fixes were checked into one branch. This is one reason why
> the versions drifted so wildly apart.
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
> David Blevins wrote:
>> We had this whole conversation last week, lots of good discussion was
>> had. I'd prefer not to have to have it again. Here is my exact
>> understanding of our consensus and would like to put it to a vote to
>> avoid reinterpretation of that consensus in the future.
>>
>> 1. branches/x.y would be the branch for all x.y.z releases
>>
>> 2. when a release is frozen, we spin off a branch with that *exact*
>> name, as in branches/x.y.z, where z starts at zero and
>> increments
>> by one.
>>
>> 3. at that time branches/x.y is immediately updated to version
>> x.y.(z+1)-SNAPSHOT
>>
>> 3. We cut releases from the frozen branch
>>
>> 4. When a release passes final tck testing and final vote, the
>> frozen branch is moved to tags
>>
>> We create a branch at freeze time for the following reasons:
>>
>> 1. it takes *at least* one week from freeze to ship due to voting,
>> tck testing and potential repeats of that process (re-cut,
>> re-certify, re-vote). There is no reason why work on x.y.z+1
>> needs to be delayed -- only 52 weeks a year.
>>
>> 2. stronger guarantee no one is updating the branch once frozen
>>
>> 3. less likely that people and ci systems (continuum) will checkout
>> and build pre-release versions of x.y.z (not x.y.z-SNAPSHOT)
>> which
>> would need to be removed manually and may accidentally be
>> distributed.
>>
>> 4. it is currently very difficult to roll version numbers forward,
>> entries here and there are often missed. Far better to have
>> branches/x.y have a few straggling old x.y.z-SNAPSHOT versions
>> than a few overlooked x.y.z final numbers that needed to go back
>> to SNAPSHOT -- they never leave SNAPSHOT and need to be reverted
>> back later if that process happens in the frozen branch.
>>
>>
>> Here is my +1
>>
>>
>> -- David
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 21, 2006, at 4:14 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>
>>> After the branches/1.1 was moved to tags there was some question
>>> as to what happened to the 1.1 branch. At that time some kind
>>> soul created a new branches/1.1.1. No activity has occurred in
>>> that branch and given that we'll need to define the release goals
>>> of 1.1.1 soon I'd like to propose the following.
>>>
>>> After 1.1 is released:
>>>
>>> * Delete branches/1.1.1
>>> * Move branches/1.1.0 to tags/1.1.0
>>> * Copy tags/1.1.0 to branches/1.1.1
>>> * Update branches 1.1.1 to be 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT
>>> * Start working on 1.1.1
>>>
>>> When 1.1.1 enters time for release
>>>
>>> * Move branches/1.1.1 to branches/1.1.1.0
>>> * Change version from 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT to 1.1.1
>>> * Create release candidate rc1
>>> * put out for a vote
>>> * get a successful vote with no respins :)
>>> * move from branches/1.1.1.0 to tags/1.1.1.0
>>>
>>> Based on all the confusion in the past I think this procedure
>>> makes it clear what phase were in for the release as well as
>>> avoids tagging and branching repeatedly.
>>>
>>> I'm looking for lazy consensus and not a formal vote.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Release branching process (was Re: Life After 1.1 - starting the new branch for 1.1.1 - some logistics and your input requested.)
Posted by Prasad Kashyap <go...@gmail.com>.
David,
Thanks for that excellent recap.
+1 from me.
+1 to Alan's comment that all patches to branches should also be
applied to the trunk. Any future x.(y+1) branch should come from the
trunk and not from the recently frozen x.y.z branch.
Cheers
Prasad
On 6/21/06, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> On 6/21/06, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > I think that we should mention that patches that go into
> >
> > x.y.z also go into x.y and trunk
> > x.y also go into trunk
> >
> > Last time we neglected to apply patches evenly across the board when
> > fixes were checked into one branch. This is one reason why the versions
> > drifted so wildly apart.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Alan
> >
> > David Blevins wrote:
> > > We had this whole conversation last week, lots of good discussion was
> > > had. I'd prefer not to have to have it again. Here is my exact
> > > understanding of our consensus and would like to put it to a vote to
> > > avoid reinterpretation of that consensus in the future.
> > >
> > > 1. branches/x.y would be the branch for all x.y.z releases
> > >
> > > 2. when a release is frozen, we spin off a branch with that *exact*
> > > name, as in branches/x.y.z, where z starts at zero and increments
> > > by one.
> > >
> > > 3. at that time branches/x.y is immediately updated to version
> > > x.y.(z+1)-SNAPSHOT
> > >
> > > 3. We cut releases from the frozen branch
> > >
> > > 4. When a release passes final tck testing and final vote, the
> > > frozen branch is moved to tags
> > >
> > > We create a branch at freeze time for the following reasons:
> > >
> > > 1. it takes *at least* one week from freeze to ship due to voting,
> > > tck testing and potential repeats of that process (re-cut,
> > > re-certify, re-vote). There is no reason why work on x.y.z+1
> > > needs to be delayed -- only 52 weeks a year.
> > >
> > > 2. stronger guarantee no one is updating the branch once frozen
> > >
> > > 3. less likely that people and ci systems (continuum) will checkout
> > > and build pre-release versions of x.y.z (not x.y.z-SNAPSHOT) which
> > > would need to be removed manually and may accidentally be
> > > distributed.
> > >
> > > 4. it is currently very difficult to roll version numbers forward,
> > > entries here and there are often missed. Far better to have
> > > branches/x.y have a few straggling old x.y.z-SNAPSHOT versions
> > > than a few overlooked x.y.z final numbers that needed to go back
> > > to SNAPSHOT -- they never leave SNAPSHOT and need to be reverted
> > > back later if that process happens in the frozen branch.
> > >
> > >
> > > Here is my +1
> > >
> > >
> > > -- David
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Jun 21, 2006, at 4:14 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> > >
> > >> After the branches/1.1 was moved to tags there was some question as
> > >> to what happened to the 1.1 branch. At that time some kind soul
> > >> created a new branches/1.1.1. No activity has occurred in that
> > >> branch and given that we'll need to define the release goals of 1.1.1
> > >> soon I'd like to propose the following.
> > >>
> > >> After 1.1 is released:
> > >>
> > >> * Delete branches/1.1.1
> > >> * Move branches/1.1.0 to tags/1.1.0
> > >> * Copy tags/1.1.0 to branches/1.1.1
> > >> * Update branches 1.1.1 to be 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT
> > >> * Start working on 1.1.1
> > >>
> > >> When 1.1.1 enters time for release
> > >>
> > >> * Move branches/1.1.1 to branches/1.1.1.0
> > >> * Change version from 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT to 1.1.1
> > >> * Create release candidate rc1
> > >> * put out for a vote
> > >> * get a successful vote with no respins :)
> > >> * move from branches/1.1.1.0 to tags/1.1.1.0
> > >>
> > >> Based on all the confusion in the past I think this procedure makes
> > >> it clear what phase were in for the release as well as avoids tagging
> > >> and branching repeatedly.
> > >>
> > >> I'm looking for lazy consensus and not a formal vote.
> > >>
> > >> Matt
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Hiram
>
> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>
Re: [VOTE] Release branching process (was Re: Life After 1.1 - starting the new branch for 1.1.1 - some logistics and your input requested.)
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
+1
On 6/21/06, Alan D. Cabrera <li...@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> I think that we should mention that patches that go into
>
> x.y.z also go into x.y and trunk
> x.y also go into trunk
>
> Last time we neglected to apply patches evenly across the board when
> fixes were checked into one branch. This is one reason why the versions
> drifted so wildly apart.
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
> David Blevins wrote:
> > We had this whole conversation last week, lots of good discussion was
> > had. I'd prefer not to have to have it again. Here is my exact
> > understanding of our consensus and would like to put it to a vote to
> > avoid reinterpretation of that consensus in the future.
> >
> > 1. branches/x.y would be the branch for all x.y.z releases
> >
> > 2. when a release is frozen, we spin off a branch with that *exact*
> > name, as in branches/x.y.z, where z starts at zero and increments
> > by one.
> >
> > 3. at that time branches/x.y is immediately updated to version
> > x.y.(z+1)-SNAPSHOT
> >
> > 3. We cut releases from the frozen branch
> >
> > 4. When a release passes final tck testing and final vote, the
> > frozen branch is moved to tags
> >
> > We create a branch at freeze time for the following reasons:
> >
> > 1. it takes *at least* one week from freeze to ship due to voting,
> > tck testing and potential repeats of that process (re-cut,
> > re-certify, re-vote). There is no reason why work on x.y.z+1
> > needs to be delayed -- only 52 weeks a year.
> >
> > 2. stronger guarantee no one is updating the branch once frozen
> >
> > 3. less likely that people and ci systems (continuum) will checkout
> > and build pre-release versions of x.y.z (not x.y.z-SNAPSHOT) which
> > would need to be removed manually and may accidentally be
> > distributed.
> >
> > 4. it is currently very difficult to roll version numbers forward,
> > entries here and there are often missed. Far better to have
> > branches/x.y have a few straggling old x.y.z-SNAPSHOT versions
> > than a few overlooked x.y.z final numbers that needed to go back
> > to SNAPSHOT -- they never leave SNAPSHOT and need to be reverted
> > back later if that process happens in the frozen branch.
> >
> >
> > Here is my +1
> >
> >
> > -- David
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jun 21, 2006, at 4:14 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> >
> >> After the branches/1.1 was moved to tags there was some question as
> >> to what happened to the 1.1 branch. At that time some kind soul
> >> created a new branches/1.1.1. No activity has occurred in that
> >> branch and given that we'll need to define the release goals of 1.1.1
> >> soon I'd like to propose the following.
> >>
> >> After 1.1 is released:
> >>
> >> * Delete branches/1.1.1
> >> * Move branches/1.1.0 to tags/1.1.0
> >> * Copy tags/1.1.0 to branches/1.1.1
> >> * Update branches 1.1.1 to be 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT
> >> * Start working on 1.1.1
> >>
> >> When 1.1.1 enters time for release
> >>
> >> * Move branches/1.1.1 to branches/1.1.1.0
> >> * Change version from 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT to 1.1.1
> >> * Create release candidate rc1
> >> * put out for a vote
> >> * get a successful vote with no respins :)
> >> * move from branches/1.1.1.0 to tags/1.1.1.0
> >>
> >> Based on all the confusion in the past I think this procedure makes
> >> it clear what phase were in for the release as well as avoids tagging
> >> and branching repeatedly.
> >>
> >> I'm looking for lazy consensus and not a formal vote.
> >>
> >> Matt
> >>
> >
>
>
--
Regards,
Hiram
Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
Re: [VOTE] Release branching process (was Re: Life After 1.1 - starting the new branch for 1.1.1 - some logistics and your input requested.)
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
+1 to david and alan's annotations.
Lets get it in the wiki!
thanks
david jencks
On Jun 22, 2006, at 4:06 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> +1
>
> I think that we should mention that patches that go into
>
> x.y.z also go into x.y and trunk
> x.y also go into trunk
>
> Last time we neglected to apply patches evenly across the board
> when fixes were checked into one branch. This is one reason why
> the versions drifted so wildly apart.
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
> David Blevins wrote:
>> We had this whole conversation last week, lots of good discussion was
>> had. I'd prefer not to have to have it again. Here is my exact
>> understanding of our consensus and would like to put it to a vote to
>> avoid reinterpretation of that consensus in the future.
>>
>> 1. branches/x.y would be the branch for all x.y.z releases
>>
>> 2. when a release is frozen, we spin off a branch with that *exact*
>> name, as in branches/x.y.z, where z starts at zero and
>> increments
>> by one.
>>
>> 3. at that time branches/x.y is immediately updated to version
>> x.y.(z+1)-SNAPSHOT
>>
>> 3. We cut releases from the frozen branch
>>
>> 4. When a release passes final tck testing and final vote, the
>> frozen branch is moved to tags
>>
>> We create a branch at freeze time for the following reasons:
>>
>> 1. it takes *at least* one week from freeze to ship due to voting,
>> tck testing and potential repeats of that process (re-cut,
>> re-certify, re-vote). There is no reason why work on x.y.z+1
>> needs to be delayed -- only 52 weeks a year.
>>
>> 2. stronger guarantee no one is updating the branch once frozen
>>
>> 3. less likely that people and ci systems (continuum) will checkout
>> and build pre-release versions of x.y.z (not x.y.z-SNAPSHOT)
>> which
>> would need to be removed manually and may accidentally be
>> distributed.
>>
>> 4. it is currently very difficult to roll version numbers forward,
>> entries here and there are often missed. Far better to have
>> branches/x.y have a few straggling old x.y.z-SNAPSHOT versions
>> than a few overlooked x.y.z final numbers that needed to go back
>> to SNAPSHOT -- they never leave SNAPSHOT and need to be reverted
>> back later if that process happens in the frozen branch.
>>
>>
>> Here is my +1
>>
>>
>> -- David
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 21, 2006, at 4:14 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>
>>> After the branches/1.1 was moved to tags there was some question
>>> as to what happened to the 1.1 branch. At that time some kind
>>> soul created a new branches/1.1.1. No activity has occurred in
>>> that branch and given that we'll need to define the release goals
>>> of 1.1.1 soon I'd like to propose the following.
>>>
>>> After 1.1 is released:
>>>
>>> * Delete branches/1.1.1
>>> * Move branches/1.1.0 to tags/1.1.0
>>> * Copy tags/1.1.0 to branches/1.1.1
>>> * Update branches 1.1.1 to be 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT
>>> * Start working on 1.1.1
>>>
>>> When 1.1.1 enters time for release
>>>
>>> * Move branches/1.1.1 to branches/1.1.1.0
>>> * Change version from 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT to 1.1.1
>>> * Create release candidate rc1
>>> * put out for a vote
>>> * get a successful vote with no respins :)
>>> * move from branches/1.1.1.0 to tags/1.1.1.0
>>>
>>> Based on all the confusion in the past I think this procedure
>>> makes it clear what phase were in for the release as well as
>>> avoids tagging and branching repeatedly.
>>>
>>> I'm looking for lazy consensus and not a formal vote.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release branching process (was Re: Life After 1.1 - starting
the new branch for 1.1.1 - some logistics and your input requested.)
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
+1
I think that we should mention that patches that go into
x.y.z also go into x.y and trunk
x.y also go into trunk
Last time we neglected to apply patches evenly across the board when
fixes were checked into one branch. This is one reason why the versions
drifted so wildly apart.
Regards,
Alan
David Blevins wrote:
> We had this whole conversation last week, lots of good discussion was
> had. I'd prefer not to have to have it again. Here is my exact
> understanding of our consensus and would like to put it to a vote to
> avoid reinterpretation of that consensus in the future.
>
> 1. branches/x.y would be the branch for all x.y.z releases
>
> 2. when a release is frozen, we spin off a branch with that *exact*
> name, as in branches/x.y.z, where z starts at zero and increments
> by one.
>
> 3. at that time branches/x.y is immediately updated to version
> x.y.(z+1)-SNAPSHOT
>
> 3. We cut releases from the frozen branch
>
> 4. When a release passes final tck testing and final vote, the
> frozen branch is moved to tags
>
> We create a branch at freeze time for the following reasons:
>
> 1. it takes *at least* one week from freeze to ship due to voting,
> tck testing and potential repeats of that process (re-cut,
> re-certify, re-vote). There is no reason why work on x.y.z+1
> needs to be delayed -- only 52 weeks a year.
>
> 2. stronger guarantee no one is updating the branch once frozen
>
> 3. less likely that people and ci systems (continuum) will checkout
> and build pre-release versions of x.y.z (not x.y.z-SNAPSHOT) which
> would need to be removed manually and may accidentally be
> distributed.
>
> 4. it is currently very difficult to roll version numbers forward,
> entries here and there are often missed. Far better to have
> branches/x.y have a few straggling old x.y.z-SNAPSHOT versions
> than a few overlooked x.y.z final numbers that needed to go back
> to SNAPSHOT -- they never leave SNAPSHOT and need to be reverted
> back later if that process happens in the frozen branch.
>
>
> Here is my +1
>
>
> -- David
>
>
>
> On Jun 21, 2006, at 4:14 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
>> After the branches/1.1 was moved to tags there was some question as
>> to what happened to the 1.1 branch. At that time some kind soul
>> created a new branches/1.1.1. No activity has occurred in that
>> branch and given that we'll need to define the release goals of 1.1.1
>> soon I'd like to propose the following.
>>
>> After 1.1 is released:
>>
>> * Delete branches/1.1.1
>> * Move branches/1.1.0 to tags/1.1.0
>> * Copy tags/1.1.0 to branches/1.1.1
>> * Update branches 1.1.1 to be 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT
>> * Start working on 1.1.1
>>
>> When 1.1.1 enters time for release
>>
>> * Move branches/1.1.1 to branches/1.1.1.0
>> * Change version from 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT to 1.1.1
>> * Create release candidate rc1
>> * put out for a vote
>> * get a successful vote with no respins :)
>> * move from branches/1.1.1.0 to tags/1.1.1.0
>>
>> Based on all the confusion in the past I think this procedure makes
>> it clear what phase were in for the release as well as avoids tagging
>> and branching repeatedly.
>>
>> I'm looking for lazy consensus and not a formal vote.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release branching process (was Re: Life After 1.1 - starting the new branch for 1.1.1 - some logistics and your input requested.)
Posted by Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl>.
On 6/22/06, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> Definitely, was waiting to see some +1s before doing that part.
>
> Here it is:
>
> http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/release-branching-process.html
+1 (with the overly used 'That reflects my sentiments as well' :-) )
> -David
Jacek
--
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.laskowski.net.pl
Re: [VOTE] Release branching process (was Re: Life After 1.1 - starting the new branch for 1.1.1 - some logistics and your input requested.)
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Jun 22, 2006, at 2:01 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
> +1 (and we need to make sure this is added to the wiki so we can
> remember it the next time a release is spun :-))
Definitely, was waiting to see some +1s before doing that part.
Here it is:
http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/release-branching-process.html
-David
> David Blevins wrote:
>> We had this whole conversation last week, lots of good discussion was
>> had. I'd prefer not to have to have it again. Here is my exact
>> understanding of our consensus and would like to put it to a vote to
>> avoid reinterpretation of that consensus in the future.
>>
>> 1. branches/x.y would be the branch for all x.y.z releases
>>
>> 2. when a release is frozen, we spin off a branch with that *exact*
>> name, as in branches/x.y.z, where z starts at zero and
>> increments
>> by one.
>>
>> 3. at that time branches/x.y is immediately updated to version
>> x.y.(z+1)-SNAPSHOT
>>
>> 3. We cut releases from the frozen branch
>>
>> 4. When a release passes final tck testing and final vote, the
>> frozen branch is moved to tags
>>
>> We create a branch at freeze time for the following reasons:
>>
>> 1. it takes *at least* one week from freeze to ship due to voting,
>> tck testing and potential repeats of that process (re-cut,
>> re-certify, re-vote). There is no reason why work on x.y.z+1
>> needs to be delayed -- only 52 weeks a year.
>>
>> 2. stronger guarantee no one is updating the branch once frozen
>>
>> 3. less likely that people and ci systems (continuum) will checkout
>> and build pre-release versions of x.y.z (not x.y.z-SNAPSHOT)
>> which
>> would need to be removed manually and may accidentally be
>> distributed.
>>
>> 4. it is currently very difficult to roll version numbers forward,
>> entries here and there are often missed. Far better to have
>> branches/x.y have a few straggling old x.y.z-SNAPSHOT versions
>> than a few overlooked x.y.z final numbers that needed to go back
>> to SNAPSHOT -- they never leave SNAPSHOT and need to be reverted
>> back later if that process happens in the frozen branch.
>>
>>
>> Here is my +1
>>
>>
>> -- David
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 21, 2006, at 4:14 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>
>>> After the branches/1.1 was moved to tags there was some question
>>> as to what happened to the 1.1 branch. At that time some kind
>>> soul created a new branches/1.1.1. No activity has occurred in
>>> that branch and given that we'll need to define the release goals
>>> of 1.1.1 soon I'd like to propose the following.
>>>
>>> After 1.1 is released:
>>>
>>> * Delete branches/1.1.1
>>> * Move branches/1.1.0 to tags/1.1.0
>>> * Copy tags/1.1.0 to branches/1.1.1
>>> * Update branches 1.1.1 to be 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT
>>> * Start working on 1.1.1
>>>
>>> When 1.1.1 enters time for release
>>>
>>> * Move branches/1.1.1 to branches/1.1.1.0
>>> * Change version from 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT to 1.1.1
>>> * Create release candidate rc1
>>> * put out for a vote
>>> * get a successful vote with no respins :)
>>> * move from branches/1.1.1.0 to tags/1.1.1.0
>>>
>>> Based on all the confusion in the past I think this procedure
>>> makes it clear what phase were in for the release as well as
>>> avoids tagging and branching repeatedly.
>>>
>>> I'm looking for lazy consensus and not a formal vote.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release branching process (was Re: Life After 1.1 - starting
the new branch for 1.1.1 - some logistics and your input requested.)
Posted by Rick McGuire <ri...@gmail.com>.
+1 (and we need to make sure this is added to the wiki so we can
remember it the next time a release is spun :-))
David Blevins wrote:
> We had this whole conversation last week, lots of good discussion was
> had. I'd prefer not to have to have it again. Here is my exact
> understanding of our consensus and would like to put it to a vote to
> avoid reinterpretation of that consensus in the future.
>
> 1. branches/x.y would be the branch for all x.y.z releases
>
> 2. when a release is frozen, we spin off a branch with that *exact*
> name, as in branches/x.y.z, where z starts at zero and increments
> by one.
>
> 3. at that time branches/x.y is immediately updated to version
> x.y.(z+1)-SNAPSHOT
>
> 3. We cut releases from the frozen branch
>
> 4. When a release passes final tck testing and final vote, the
> frozen branch is moved to tags
>
> We create a branch at freeze time for the following reasons:
>
> 1. it takes *at least* one week from freeze to ship due to voting,
> tck testing and potential repeats of that process (re-cut,
> re-certify, re-vote). There is no reason why work on x.y.z+1
> needs to be delayed -- only 52 weeks a year.
>
> 2. stronger guarantee no one is updating the branch once frozen
>
> 3. less likely that people and ci systems (continuum) will checkout
> and build pre-release versions of x.y.z (not x.y.z-SNAPSHOT) which
> would need to be removed manually and may accidentally be
> distributed.
>
> 4. it is currently very difficult to roll version numbers forward,
> entries here and there are often missed. Far better to have
> branches/x.y have a few straggling old x.y.z-SNAPSHOT versions
> than a few overlooked x.y.z final numbers that needed to go back
> to SNAPSHOT -- they never leave SNAPSHOT and need to be reverted
> back later if that process happens in the frozen branch.
>
>
> Here is my +1
>
>
> -- David
>
>
>
> On Jun 21, 2006, at 4:14 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
>> After the branches/1.1 was moved to tags there was some question as
>> to what happened to the 1.1 branch. At that time some kind soul
>> created a new branches/1.1.1. No activity has occurred in that
>> branch and given that we'll need to define the release goals of 1.1.1
>> soon I'd like to propose the following.
>>
>> After 1.1 is released:
>>
>> * Delete branches/1.1.1
>> * Move branches/1.1.0 to tags/1.1.0
>> * Copy tags/1.1.0 to branches/1.1.1
>> * Update branches 1.1.1 to be 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT
>> * Start working on 1.1.1
>>
>> When 1.1.1 enters time for release
>>
>> * Move branches/1.1.1 to branches/1.1.1.0
>> * Change version from 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT to 1.1.1
>> * Create release candidate rc1
>> * put out for a vote
>> * get a successful vote with no respins :)
>> * move from branches/1.1.1.0 to tags/1.1.1.0
>>
>> Based on all the confusion in the past I think this procedure makes
>> it clear what phase were in for the release as well as avoids tagging
>> and branching repeatedly.
>>
>> I'm looking for lazy consensus and not a formal vote.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release branching process (was Re: Life After 1.1 - starting
the new branch for 1.1.1 - some logistics and your input requested.)
Posted by Gianny Damour <gi...@optusnet.com.au>.
+1
Gianny
David Blevins wrote:
> We had this whole conversation last week, lots of good discussion was
> had. I'd prefer not to have to have it again. Here is my exact
> understanding of our consensus and would like to put it to a vote to
> avoid reinterpretation of that consensus in the future.
>
> 1. branches/x.y would be the branch for all x.y.z releases
>
> 2. when a release is frozen, we spin off a branch with that *exact*
> name, as in branches/x.y.z, where z starts at zero and increments
> by one.
>
> 3. at that time branches/x.y is immediately updated to version
> x.y.(z+1)-SNAPSHOT
>
> 3. We cut releases from the frozen branch
>
> 4. When a release passes final tck testing and final vote, the
> frozen branch is moved to tags
>
> We create a branch at freeze time for the following reasons:
>
> 1. it takes *at least* one week from freeze to ship due to voting,
> tck testing and potential repeats of that process (re-cut,
> re-certify, re-vote). There is no reason why work on x.y.z+1
> needs to be delayed -- only 52 weeks a year.
>
> 2. stronger guarantee no one is updating the branch once frozen
>
> 3. less likely that people and ci systems (continuum) will checkout
> and build pre-release versions of x.y.z (not x.y.z-SNAPSHOT) which
> would need to be removed manually and may accidentally be
> distributed.
>
> 4. it is currently very difficult to roll version numbers forward,
> entries here and there are often missed. Far better to have
> branches/x.y have a few straggling old x.y.z-SNAPSHOT versions
> than a few overlooked x.y.z final numbers that needed to go back
> to SNAPSHOT -- they never leave SNAPSHOT and need to be reverted
> back later if that process happens in the frozen branch.
>
>
> Here is my +1
>
>
> -- David
>
>
>
> On Jun 21, 2006, at 4:14 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
>> After the branches/1.1 was moved to tags there was some question as
>> to what happened to the 1.1 branch. At that time some kind soul
>> created a new branches/1.1.1. No activity has occurred in that
>> branch and given that we'll need to define the release goals of
>> 1.1.1 soon I'd like to propose the following.
>>
>> After 1.1 is released:
>>
>> * Delete branches/1.1.1
>> * Move branches/1.1.0 to tags/1.1.0
>> * Copy tags/1.1.0 to branches/1.1.1
>> * Update branches 1.1.1 to be 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT
>> * Start working on 1.1.1
>>
>> When 1.1.1 enters time for release
>>
>> * Move branches/1.1.1 to branches/1.1.1.0
>> * Change version from 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT to 1.1.1
>> * Create release candidate rc1
>> * put out for a vote
>> * get a successful vote with no respins :)
>> * move from branches/1.1.1.0 to tags/1.1.1.0
>>
>> Based on all the confusion in the past I think this procedure makes
>> it clear what phase were in for the release as well as avoids
>> tagging and branching repeatedly.
>>
>> I'm looking for lazy consensus and not a formal vote.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release branching process (was Re: Life After 1.1 - starting
the new branch for 1.1.1 - some logistics and your input requested.)
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
Thanks David.
David Blevins wrote:
> On Jun 25, 2006, at 8:49 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>> Greg Wilkins wrote:
>>> I think the wiki should clarify the patch process for release branches.
>>>
>>>
>> Agreed. I have added slight caveats for
>>
>> New Features:
>>
>> develop in trunk
>> patch to current x.y branch (if to be captured in next x.y.z release)
>>
>>
>> Fixes
>>
>> develop in x.y branch (if to be captured in next x.y.z release else
>> develop in trunk)
>> patch to trunk
>> patch to current x.y.z (if it is a TCK bug).
>
> This is good discussion. In the interests of seeing it continue while
> keeping clear what we've voted on and what is still open for discussion,
> i've split this out into a new wiki page titled with the soft word
> "guidelines."
>
> http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/development-and-patch-guidelines.html
>
> Further, i've added a "Notice" section at the bottom of this page that
> states, "The process in this document was voted on by the Geronimo
> community. Please formally propose all changes to dev@geronimo.apache.org"
>
> http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/release-branching-process.html
>
>
> -David
>
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alan
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release branching process (was Re: Life After 1.1 - starting
the new branch for 1.1.1 - some logistics and your input requested.)
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
David Blevins wrote:
> On Jun 25, 2006, at 8:49 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>> Greg Wilkins wrote:
>>> I think the wiki should clarify the patch process for release branches.
>>>
>>>
>> Agreed. I have added slight caveats for
>>
>> New Features:
>>
>> develop in trunk
>> patch to current x.y branch (if to be captured in next x.y.z release)
>>
>>
>> Fixes
>>
>> develop in x.y branch (if to be captured in next x.y.z release else
>> develop in trunk)
>> patch to trunk
>> patch to current x.y.z (if it is a TCK bug).
>
> This is good discussion. In the interests of seeing it continue while
> keeping clear what we've voted on and what is still open for
> discussion, i've split this out into a new wiki page titled with the
> soft word "guidelines."
>
> http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/development-and-patch-guidelines.html
>
> Further, i've added a "Notice" section at the bottom of this page that
> states, "The process in this document was voted on by the Geronimo
> community. Please formally propose all changes to
> dev@geronimo.apache.org"
>
> http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/release-branching-process.html
Makes sense. Thanks David.
Regards,
Alan
Re: [VOTE] Release branching process (was Re: Life After 1.1 - starting the new branch for 1.1.1 - some logistics and your input requested.)
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Jun 25, 2006, at 8:49 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> Greg Wilkins wrote:
>> I think the wiki should clarify the patch process for release
>> branches.
>>
>>
> Agreed. I have added slight caveats for
>
> New Features:
>
> develop in trunk
> patch to current x.y branch (if to be captured in next x.y.z release)
>
>
> Fixes
>
> develop in x.y branch (if to be captured in next x.y.z release else
> develop in trunk)
> patch to trunk
> patch to current x.y.z (if it is a TCK bug).
This is good discussion. In the interests of seeing it continue
while keeping clear what we've voted on and what is still open for
discussion, i've split this out into a new wiki page titled with the
soft word "guidelines."
http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/development-and-patch-guidelines.html
Further, i've added a "Notice" section at the bottom of this page
that states, "The process in this document was voted on by the
Geronimo community. Please formally propose all changes to
dev@geronimo.apache.org"
http://cwiki.apache.org/GMOxPMGT/release-branching-process.html
-David
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release branching process (was Re: Life After 1.1 - starting
the new branch for 1.1.1 - some logistics and your input requested.)
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
Greg Wilkins wrote:
> I think the wiki should clarify the patch process for release branches.
>
>
Agreed. I have added slight caveats for
New Features:
develop in trunk
patch to current x.y branch (if to be captured in next x.y.z release)
Fixes
develop in x.y branch (if to be captured in next x.y.z release else
develop in trunk)
patch to trunk
patch to current x.y.z (if it is a TCK bug).
Regards,
Alan
Re: [VOTE] Release branching process (was Re: Life After 1.1 - starting
the new branch for 1.1.1 - some logistics and your input requested.)
Posted by Greg Wilkins <gr...@mortbay.com>.
+1
while I have some quibbles with the process.... it is much better to
have an agred well defined process than it is to have a constant debate
about a perfect one.
I think the wiki should clarify the patch process for release branches.
Personally I think that there are two processes:
New Features:
develop in trunk
patch to current x.y branch
captured in next x.y.z
Fixes
develop in x.y branch
patch to trunk
patch to current x.y.z (if NOT frozen yet).
cheers
Re: [VOTE] Release branching process (was Re: Life After 1.1 - starting the new branch for 1.1.1 - some logistics and your input requested.)
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Jun 22, 2006, at 3:17 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> The remaining question is what to do with the branches that are out
> there. I think we should whack what's out there (does not appear
> that there has been any activity) branches/1.1 and branches/1.1.1.
> When the vote is complete later today and we release 1.1 I'll move
> branches/1.1.0 to tags/1.1.0 and then make the copy to branches/1.1
> and update the versions to 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT as well as the plugin
> releases.
I whacked branches/1.1.1 -- that was my mess. We're good on branches/
1.1, it was created from 1.1.0. There was an update to the 1.1.0
NOTICE.txt file which is the only thing we have to port back.
>
> Then I think we're open for G-Business.
G-reat.
/me is getting a very Tony the Tiger vibe
-David
Re: [VOTE] Release branching process (was Re: Life After 1.1 - starting the new branch for 1.1.1 - some logistics and your input requested.)
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
On 6/22/06, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> Thanks David, I tried to recap in the other thread and didn't receive any additional responses so
> now that we have a branches/1.1.0 branches/1.1 and a branches/1.1.1 I don't think we quite nailed
> it. Your summary is great and I concur.
>
> Here is my + 1 and I'm happy to get the Wiki updated.
>
> The remaining question is what to do with the branches that are out there. I think we should whack
> what's out there (does not appear that there has been any activity) branches/1.1 and branches/1.1.1.
> When the vote is complete later today and we release 1.1 I'll move branches/1.1.0 to tags/1.1.0
> and then make the copy to branches/1.1 and update the versions to 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT as well as the
> plugin releases.
+1
>
> Then I think we're open for G-Business.
>
> David Blevins wrote:
> > We had this whole conversation last week, lots of good discussion was
> > had. I'd prefer not to have to have it again. Here is my exact
> > understanding of our consensus and would like to put it to a vote to
> > avoid reinterpretation of that consensus in the future.
> >
> > 1. branches/x.y would be the branch for all x.y.z releases
> >
> > 2. when a release is frozen, we spin off a branch with that *exact*
> > name, as in branches/x.y.z, where z starts at zero and increments
> > by one.
> >
> > 3. at that time branches/x.y is immediately updated to version
> > x.y.(z+1)-SNAPSHOT
> >
> > 3. We cut releases from the frozen branch
> >
> > 4. When a release passes final tck testing and final vote, the
> > frozen branch is moved to tags
> >
> > We create a branch at freeze time for the following reasons:
> >
> > 1. it takes *at least* one week from freeze to ship due to voting,
> > tck testing and potential repeats of that process (re-cut,
> > re-certify, re-vote). There is no reason why work on x.y.z+1
> > needs to be delayed -- only 52 weeks a year.
> >
> > 2. stronger guarantee no one is updating the branch once frozen
> >
> > 3. less likely that people and ci systems (continuum) will checkout
> > and build pre-release versions of x.y.z (not x.y.z-SNAPSHOT) which
> > would need to be removed manually and may accidentally be
> > distributed.
> >
> > 4. it is currently very difficult to roll version numbers forward,
> > entries here and there are often missed. Far better to have
> > branches/x.y have a few straggling old x.y.z-SNAPSHOT versions
> > than a few overlooked x.y.z final numbers that needed to go back
> > to SNAPSHOT -- they never leave SNAPSHOT and need to be reverted
> > back later if that process happens in the frozen branch.
> >
> >
> > Here is my +1
> >
> >
> > -- David
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jun 21, 2006, at 4:14 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> >
> >> After the branches/1.1 was moved to tags there was some question as to
> >> what happened to the 1.1 branch. At that time some kind soul created
> >> a new branches/1.1.1. No activity has occurred in that branch and
> >> given that we'll need to define the release goals of 1.1.1 soon I'd
> >> like to propose the following.
> >>
> >> After 1.1 is released:
> >>
> >> * Delete branches/1.1.1
> >> * Move branches/1.1.0 to tags/1.1.0
> >> * Copy tags/1.1.0 to branches/1.1.1
> >> * Update branches 1.1.1 to be 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT
> >> * Start working on 1.1.1
> >>
> >> When 1.1.1 enters time for release
> >>
> >> * Move branches/1.1.1 to branches/1.1.1.0
> >> * Change version from 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT to 1.1.1
> >> * Create release candidate rc1
> >> * put out for a vote
> >> * get a successful vote with no respins :)
> >> * move from branches/1.1.1.0 to tags/1.1.1.0
> >>
> >> Based on all the confusion in the past I think this procedure makes it
> >> clear what phase were in for the release as well as avoids tagging and
> >> branching repeatedly.
> >>
> >> I'm looking for lazy consensus and not a formal vote.
> >>
> >> Matt
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--
Regards,
Hiram
Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
Re: [VOTE] Release branching process (was Re: Life After 1.1 - starting the new branch for 1.1.1 - some logistics and your input requested.)
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
> Then I think we're open for G-Business.
I love it... G-Business :-)
--jason
Re: [VOTE] Release branching process (was Re: Life After 1.1 - starting
the new branch for 1.1.1 - some logistics and your input requested.)
Posted by John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com>.
+1 to David's recap and to Matts plans below.
John
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Thanks David, I tried to recap in the other thread and didn't receive
> any additional responses so now that we have a branches/1.1.0
> branches/1.1 and a branches/1.1.1 I don't think we quite nailed it.
> Your summary is great and I concur.
>
> Here is my + 1 and I'm happy to get the Wiki updated.
>
> The remaining question is what to do with the branches that are out
> there. I think we should whack what's out there (does not appear that
> there has been any activity) branches/1.1 and branches/1.1.1. When
> the vote is complete later today and we release 1.1 I'll move
> branches/1.1.0 to tags/1.1.0 and then make the copy to branches/1.1
> and update the versions to 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT as well as the plugin releases.
>
> Then I think we're open for G-Business.
>
> David Blevins wrote:
>> We had this whole conversation last week, lots of good discussion was
>> had. I'd prefer not to have to have it again. Here is my exact
>> understanding of our consensus and would like to put it to a vote to
>> avoid reinterpretation of that consensus in the future.
>>
>> 1. branches/x.y would be the branch for all x.y.z releases
>>
>> 2. when a release is frozen, we spin off a branch with that *exact*
>> name, as in branches/x.y.z, where z starts at zero and increments
>> by one.
>>
>> 3. at that time branches/x.y is immediately updated to version
>> x.y.(z+1)-SNAPSHOT
>>
>> 3. We cut releases from the frozen branch
>>
>> 4. When a release passes final tck testing and final vote, the
>> frozen branch is moved to tags
>>
>> We create a branch at freeze time for the following reasons:
>>
>> 1. it takes *at least* one week from freeze to ship due to voting,
>> tck testing and potential repeats of that process (re-cut,
>> re-certify, re-vote). There is no reason why work on x.y.z+1
>> needs to be delayed -- only 52 weeks a year.
>>
>> 2. stronger guarantee no one is updating the branch once frozen
>>
>> 3. less likely that people and ci systems (continuum) will checkout
>> and build pre-release versions of x.y.z (not x.y.z-SNAPSHOT) which
>> would need to be removed manually and may accidentally be
>> distributed.
>>
>> 4. it is currently very difficult to roll version numbers forward,
>> entries here and there are often missed. Far better to have
>> branches/x.y have a few straggling old x.y.z-SNAPSHOT versions
>> than a few overlooked x.y.z final numbers that needed to go back
>> to SNAPSHOT -- they never leave SNAPSHOT and need to be reverted
>> back later if that process happens in the frozen branch.
>>
>>
>> Here is my +1
>>
>>
>> -- David
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 21, 2006, at 4:14 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>
>>> After the branches/1.1 was moved to tags there was some question as
>>> to what happened to the 1.1 branch. At that time some kind soul
>>> created a new branches/1.1.1. No activity has occurred in that
>>> branch and given that we'll need to define the release goals of
>>> 1.1.1 soon I'd like to propose the following.
>>>
>>> After 1.1 is released:
>>>
>>> * Delete branches/1.1.1
>>> * Move branches/1.1.0 to tags/1.1.0
>>> * Copy tags/1.1.0 to branches/1.1.1
>>> * Update branches 1.1.1 to be 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT
>>> * Start working on 1.1.1
>>>
>>> When 1.1.1 enters time for release
>>>
>>> * Move branches/1.1.1 to branches/1.1.1.0
>>> * Change version from 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT to 1.1.1
>>> * Create release candidate rc1
>>> * put out for a vote
>>> * get a successful vote with no respins :)
>>> * move from branches/1.1.1.0 to tags/1.1.1.0
>>>
>>> Based on all the confusion in the past I think this procedure makes
>>> it clear what phase were in for the release as well as avoids
>>> tagging and branching repeatedly.
>>>
>>> I'm looking for lazy consensus and not a formal vote.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release branching process (was Re: Life After 1.1 - starting
the new branch for 1.1.1 - some logistics and your input requested.)
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
Thanks David, I tried to recap in the other thread and didn't receive any additional responses so
now that we have a branches/1.1.0 branches/1.1 and a branches/1.1.1 I don't think we quite nailed
it. Your summary is great and I concur.
Here is my + 1 and I'm happy to get the Wiki updated.
The remaining question is what to do with the branches that are out there. I think we should whack
what's out there (does not appear that there has been any activity) branches/1.1 and branches/1.1.1.
When the vote is complete later today and we release 1.1 I'll move branches/1.1.0 to tags/1.1.0
and then make the copy to branches/1.1 and update the versions to 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT as well as the
plugin releases.
Then I think we're open for G-Business.
David Blevins wrote:
> We had this whole conversation last week, lots of good discussion was
> had. I'd prefer not to have to have it again. Here is my exact
> understanding of our consensus and would like to put it to a vote to
> avoid reinterpretation of that consensus in the future.
>
> 1. branches/x.y would be the branch for all x.y.z releases
>
> 2. when a release is frozen, we spin off a branch with that *exact*
> name, as in branches/x.y.z, where z starts at zero and increments
> by one.
>
> 3. at that time branches/x.y is immediately updated to version
> x.y.(z+1)-SNAPSHOT
>
> 3. We cut releases from the frozen branch
>
> 4. When a release passes final tck testing and final vote, the
> frozen branch is moved to tags
>
> We create a branch at freeze time for the following reasons:
>
> 1. it takes *at least* one week from freeze to ship due to voting,
> tck testing and potential repeats of that process (re-cut,
> re-certify, re-vote). There is no reason why work on x.y.z+1
> needs to be delayed -- only 52 weeks a year.
>
> 2. stronger guarantee no one is updating the branch once frozen
>
> 3. less likely that people and ci systems (continuum) will checkout
> and build pre-release versions of x.y.z (not x.y.z-SNAPSHOT) which
> would need to be removed manually and may accidentally be
> distributed.
>
> 4. it is currently very difficult to roll version numbers forward,
> entries here and there are often missed. Far better to have
> branches/x.y have a few straggling old x.y.z-SNAPSHOT versions
> than a few overlooked x.y.z final numbers that needed to go back
> to SNAPSHOT -- they never leave SNAPSHOT and need to be reverted
> back later if that process happens in the frozen branch.
>
>
> Here is my +1
>
>
> -- David
>
>
>
> On Jun 21, 2006, at 4:14 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
>> After the branches/1.1 was moved to tags there was some question as to
>> what happened to the 1.1 branch. At that time some kind soul created
>> a new branches/1.1.1. No activity has occurred in that branch and
>> given that we'll need to define the release goals of 1.1.1 soon I'd
>> like to propose the following.
>>
>> After 1.1 is released:
>>
>> * Delete branches/1.1.1
>> * Move branches/1.1.0 to tags/1.1.0
>> * Copy tags/1.1.0 to branches/1.1.1
>> * Update branches 1.1.1 to be 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT
>> * Start working on 1.1.1
>>
>> When 1.1.1 enters time for release
>>
>> * Move branches/1.1.1 to branches/1.1.1.0
>> * Change version from 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT to 1.1.1
>> * Create release candidate rc1
>> * put out for a vote
>> * get a successful vote with no respins :)
>> * move from branches/1.1.1.0 to tags/1.1.1.0
>>
>> Based on all the confusion in the past I think this procedure makes it
>> clear what phase were in for the release as well as avoids tagging and
>> branching repeatedly.
>>
>> I'm looking for lazy consensus and not a formal vote.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release branching process (was Re: Life After 1.1 - starting
the new branch for 1.1.1 - some logistics and your input requested.)
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
I don't quite understand what you are asking. Can you rephrase?
Regards,
Alan
Jason Dillon wrote:
> Does this mean that the bulk of changes will be done on M.m branches
> and only release + minor changes done on M.m.r branches?
>
> --jason
>
>
> On Jun 21, 2006, at 6:52 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>> We had this whole conversation last week, lots of good discussion was
>> had. I'd prefer not to have to have it again. Here is my exact
>> understanding of our consensus and would like to put it to a vote to
>> avoid reinterpretation of that consensus in the future.
>>
>> 1. branches/x.y would be the branch for all x.y.z releases
>>
>> 2. when a release is frozen, we spin off a branch with that *exact*
>> name, as in branches/x.y.z, where z starts at zero and increments
>> by one.
>>
>> 3. at that time branches/x.y is immediately updated to version
>> x.y.(z+1)-SNAPSHOT
>>
>> 3. We cut releases from the frozen branch
>>
>> 4. When a release passes final tck testing and final vote, the
>> frozen branch is moved to tags
>>
>> We create a branch at freeze time for the following reasons:
>>
>> 1. it takes *at least* one week from freeze to ship due to voting,
>> tck testing and potential repeats of that process (re-cut,
>> re-certify, re-vote). There is no reason why work on x.y.z+1
>> needs to be delayed -- only 52 weeks a year.
>>
>> 2. stronger guarantee no one is updating the branch once frozen
>>
>> 3. less likely that people and ci systems (continuum) will checkout
>> and build pre-release versions of x.y.z (not x.y.z-SNAPSHOT) which
>> would need to be removed manually and may accidentally be
>> distributed.
>>
>> 4. it is currently very difficult to roll version numbers forward,
>> entries here and there are often missed. Far better to have
>> branches/x.y have a few straggling old x.y.z-SNAPSHOT versions
>> than a few overlooked x.y.z final numbers that needed to go back
>> to SNAPSHOT -- they never leave SNAPSHOT and need to be reverted
>> back later if that process happens in the frozen branch.
>>
>>
>> Here is my +1
>>
>>
>> -- David
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 21, 2006, at 4:14 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>
>>> After the branches/1.1 was moved to tags there was some question as
>>> to what happened to the 1.1 branch. At that time some kind soul
>>> created a new branches/1.1.1. No activity has occurred in that
>>> branch and given that we'll need to define the release goals of
>>> 1.1.1 soon I'd like to propose the following.
>>>
>>> After 1.1 is released:
>>>
>>> * Delete branches/1.1.1
>>> * Move branches/1.1.0 to tags/1.1.0
>>> * Copy tags/1.1.0 to branches/1.1.1
>>> * Update branches 1.1.1 to be 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT
>>> * Start working on 1.1.1
>>>
>>> When 1.1.1 enters time for release
>>>
>>> * Move branches/1.1.1 to branches/1.1.1.0
>>> * Change version from 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT to 1.1.1
>>> * Create release candidate rc1
>>> * put out for a vote
>>> * get a successful vote with no respins :)
>>> * move from branches/1.1.1.0 to tags/1.1.1.0
>>>
>>> Based on all the confusion in the past I think this procedure makes
>>> it clear what phase were in for the release as well as avoids
>>> tagging and branching repeatedly.
>>>
>>> I'm looking for lazy consensus and not a formal vote.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release branching process (was Re: Life After 1.1 - starting
the new branch for 1.1.1 - some logistics and your input requested.)
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
David Blevins wrote:
>
> On Jun 21, 2006, at 10:53 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>> David Blevins wrote:
>>> The only thing done in a branches/x.y.z made from branches/x.y is
>>> the release process itself.
>> I don't quite understand what this means. Sorry.
>
> Referring to things like switching the version numbers, etc. The
> "button it up" stuff. Specifically trying to exclude thinks like
> "let's fix these 20 bugs." The only bugs fixed would be in the event
> the release candidate had an unacceptable issue and it's vote did not
> pass. That's the spirit of it anyway.
Thanks that clears it up for me. Agreed.
Regards,
Alan
Re: [VOTE] Release branching process (was Re: Life After 1.1 - starting the new branch for 1.1.1 - some logistics and your input requested.)
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Jun 21, 2006, at 10:53 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> David Blevins wrote:
>> The only thing done in a branches/x.y.z made from branches/x.y is
>> the release process itself.
> I don't quite understand what this means. Sorry.
Referring to things like switching the version numbers, etc. The
"button it up" stuff. Specifically trying to exclude thinks like
"let's fix these 20 bugs." The only bugs fixed would be in the event
the release candidate had an unacceptable issue and it's vote did not
pass. That's the spirit of it anyway.
-David
>> When we agree we look good enough to cut and run, we freeze, make
>> the branch and put together a release candidate. At the point of
>> the freeze the release manager owns the branches/x.y.z till the
>> vote passes. That's the ideal scenario anyway.
>>
>> -David
>>
>> On Jun 21, 2006, at 9:40 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>
>>> Does this mean that the bulk of changes will be done on M.m
>>> branches and only release + minor changes done on M.m.r branches?
>>>
>>> --jason
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 21, 2006, at 6:52 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>>
>>>> We had this whole conversation last week, lots of good
>>>> discussion was
>>>> had. I'd prefer not to have to have it again. Here is my exact
>>>> understanding of our consensus and would like to put it to a
>>>> vote to
>>>> avoid reinterpretation of that consensus in the future.
>>>>
>>>> 1. branches/x.y would be the branch for all x.y.z releases
>>>>
>>>> 2. when a release is frozen, we spin off a branch with that
>>>> *exact*
>>>> name, as in branches/x.y.z, where z starts at zero and
>>>> increments
>>>> by one.
>>>>
>>>> 3. at that time branches/x.y is immediately updated to version
>>>> x.y.(z+1)-SNAPSHOT
>>>>
>>>> 3. We cut releases from the frozen branch
>>>>
>>>> 4. When a release passes final tck testing and final vote, the
>>>> frozen branch is moved to tags
>>>>
>>>> We create a branch at freeze time for the following reasons:
>>>>
>>>> 1. it takes *at least* one week from freeze to ship due to voting,
>>>> tck testing and potential repeats of that process (re-cut,
>>>> re-certify, re-vote). There is no reason why work on x.y.z+1
>>>> needs to be delayed -- only 52 weeks a year.
>>>>
>>>> 2. stronger guarantee no one is updating the branch once frozen
>>>>
>>>> 3. less likely that people and ci systems (continuum) will
>>>> checkout
>>>> and build pre-release versions of x.y.z (not x.y.z-SNAPSHOT)
>>>> which
>>>> would need to be removed manually and may accidentally be
>>>> distributed.
>>>>
>>>> 4. it is currently very difficult to roll version numbers forward,
>>>> entries here and there are often missed. Far better to have
>>>> branches/x.y have a few straggling old x.y.z-SNAPSHOT versions
>>>> than a few overlooked x.y.z final numbers that needed to go
>>>> back
>>>> to SNAPSHOT -- they never leave SNAPSHOT and need to be
>>>> reverted
>>>> back later if that process happens in the frozen branch.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here is my +1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- David
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 21, 2006, at 4:14 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> After the branches/1.1 was moved to tags there was some
>>>>> question as to what happened to the 1.1 branch. At that time
>>>>> some kind soul created a new branches/1.1.1. No activity has
>>>>> occurred in that branch and given that we'll need to define the
>>>>> release goals of 1.1.1 soon I'd like to propose the following.
>>>>>
>>>>> After 1.1 is released:
>>>>>
>>>>> * Delete branches/1.1.1
>>>>> * Move branches/1.1.0 to tags/1.1.0
>>>>> * Copy tags/1.1.0 to branches/1.1.1
>>>>> * Update branches 1.1.1 to be 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT
>>>>> * Start working on 1.1.1
>>>>>
>>>>> When 1.1.1 enters time for release
>>>>>
>>>>> * Move branches/1.1.1 to branches/1.1.1.0
>>>>> * Change version from 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT to 1.1.1
>>>>> * Create release candidate rc1
>>>>> * put out for a vote
>>>>> * get a successful vote with no respins :)
>>>>> * move from branches/1.1.1.0 to tags/1.1.1.0
>>>>>
>>>>> Based on all the confusion in the past I think this procedure
>>>>> makes it clear what phase were in for the release as well as
>>>>> avoids tagging and branching repeatedly.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm looking for lazy consensus and not a formal vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> Matt
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release branching process (was Re: Life After 1.1 - starting
the new branch for 1.1.1 - some logistics and your input requested.)
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
David Blevins wrote:
> The only thing done in a branches/x.y.z made from branches/x.y is the
> release process itself.
I don't quite understand what this means. Sorry.
> When we agree we look good enough to cut and run, we freeze, make the
> branch and put together a release candidate. At the point of the
> freeze the release manager owns the branches/x.y.z till the vote
> passes. That's the ideal scenario anyway.
>
> -David
>
> On Jun 21, 2006, at 9:40 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>> Does this mean that the bulk of changes will be done on M.m branches
>> and only release + minor changes done on M.m.r branches?
>>
>> --jason
>>
>>
>> On Jun 21, 2006, at 6:52 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>> We had this whole conversation last week, lots of good discussion was
>>> had. I'd prefer not to have to have it again. Here is my exact
>>> understanding of our consensus and would like to put it to a vote to
>>> avoid reinterpretation of that consensus in the future.
>>>
>>> 1. branches/x.y would be the branch for all x.y.z releases
>>>
>>> 2. when a release is frozen, we spin off a branch with that *exact*
>>> name, as in branches/x.y.z, where z starts at zero and increments
>>> by one.
>>>
>>> 3. at that time branches/x.y is immediately updated to version
>>> x.y.(z+1)-SNAPSHOT
>>>
>>> 3. We cut releases from the frozen branch
>>>
>>> 4. When a release passes final tck testing and final vote, the
>>> frozen branch is moved to tags
>>>
>>> We create a branch at freeze time for the following reasons:
>>>
>>> 1. it takes *at least* one week from freeze to ship due to voting,
>>> tck testing and potential repeats of that process (re-cut,
>>> re-certify, re-vote). There is no reason why work on x.y.z+1
>>> needs to be delayed -- only 52 weeks a year.
>>>
>>> 2. stronger guarantee no one is updating the branch once frozen
>>>
>>> 3. less likely that people and ci systems (continuum) will checkout
>>> and build pre-release versions of x.y.z (not x.y.z-SNAPSHOT) which
>>> would need to be removed manually and may accidentally be
>>> distributed.
>>>
>>> 4. it is currently very difficult to roll version numbers forward,
>>> entries here and there are often missed. Far better to have
>>> branches/x.y have a few straggling old x.y.z-SNAPSHOT versions
>>> than a few overlooked x.y.z final numbers that needed to go back
>>> to SNAPSHOT -- they never leave SNAPSHOT and need to be reverted
>>> back later if that process happens in the frozen branch.
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is my +1
>>>
>>>
>>> -- David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 21, 2006, at 4:14 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> After the branches/1.1 was moved to tags there was some question as
>>>> to what happened to the 1.1 branch. At that time some kind soul
>>>> created a new branches/1.1.1. No activity has occurred in that
>>>> branch and given that we'll need to define the release goals of
>>>> 1.1.1 soon I'd like to propose the following.
>>>>
>>>> After 1.1 is released:
>>>>
>>>> * Delete branches/1.1.1
>>>> * Move branches/1.1.0 to tags/1.1.0
>>>> * Copy tags/1.1.0 to branches/1.1.1
>>>> * Update branches 1.1.1 to be 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT
>>>> * Start working on 1.1.1
>>>>
>>>> When 1.1.1 enters time for release
>>>>
>>>> * Move branches/1.1.1 to branches/1.1.1.0
>>>> * Change version from 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT to 1.1.1
>>>> * Create release candidate rc1
>>>> * put out for a vote
>>>> * get a successful vote with no respins :)
>>>> * move from branches/1.1.1.0 to tags/1.1.1.0
>>>>
>>>> Based on all the confusion in the past I think this procedure makes
>>>> it clear what phase were in for the release as well as avoids
>>>> tagging and branching repeatedly.
>>>>
>>>> I'm looking for lazy consensus and not a formal vote.
>>>>
>>>> Matt
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release branching process (was Re: Life After 1.1 - starting
the new branch for 1.1.1 - some logistics and your input requested.)
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
I think moving from branches to tags and back again is too disruptive. The reason it sits in its
own area in branches is so that it can be finalized and then copied once its done. If we have to
then we have to but this should be the rare exception that something is caught after the final vote
has been cast.
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> +1, but if we cut a release from the frozen branch, we need to note
> the SVN version number or something so when we move it to tags we're
> absolutely sure we didn't catch an extra commit in the tag. I'm also
> fine with copying to tags, making the candidate from tags, and then
> recreating the tag if another release candidate turns out to be
> necessary.
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
> On 6/22/06, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
>> Okay, then +1
>>
>> --jason
>>
>>
>> On Jun 21, 2006, at 10:19 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>
>> > The only thing done in a branches/x.y.z made from branches/x.y is
>> > the release process itself. When we agree we look good enough to
>> > cut and run, we freeze, make the branch and put together a release
>> > candidate. At the point of the freeze the release manager owns the
>> > branches/x.y.z till the vote passes. That's the ideal scenario
>> > anyway.
>> >
>> > -David
>> >
>> > On Jun 21, 2006, at 9:40 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>> >
>> >> Does this mean that the bulk of changes will be done on M.m
>> >> branches and only release + minor changes done on M.m.r branches?
>> >>
>> >> --jason
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Jun 21, 2006, at 6:52 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> We had this whole conversation last week, lots of good discussion
>> >>> was
>> >>> had. I'd prefer not to have to have it again. Here is my exact
>> >>> understanding of our consensus and would like to put it to a vote to
>> >>> avoid reinterpretation of that consensus in the future.
>> >>>
>> >>> 1. branches/x.y would be the branch for all x.y.z releases
>> >>>
>> >>> 2. when a release is frozen, we spin off a branch with that
>> >>> *exact*
>> >>> name, as in branches/x.y.z, where z starts at zero and
>> >>> increments
>> >>> by one.
>> >>>
>> >>> 3. at that time branches/x.y is immediately updated to version
>> >>> x.y.(z+1)-SNAPSHOT
>> >>>
>> >>> 3. We cut releases from the frozen branch
>> >>>
>> >>> 4. When a release passes final tck testing and final vote, the
>> >>> frozen branch is moved to tags
>> >>>
>> >>> We create a branch at freeze time for the following reasons:
>> >>>
>> >>> 1. it takes *at least* one week from freeze to ship due to voting,
>> >>> tck testing and potential repeats of that process (re-cut,
>> >>> re-certify, re-vote). There is no reason why work on x.y.z+1
>> >>> needs to be delayed -- only 52 weeks a year.
>> >>>
>> >>> 2. stronger guarantee no one is updating the branch once frozen
>> >>>
>> >>> 3. less likely that people and ci systems (continuum) will checkout
>> >>> and build pre-release versions of x.y.z (not x.y.z-SNAPSHOT)
>> >>> which
>> >>> would need to be removed manually and may accidentally be
>> >>> distributed.
>> >>>
>> >>> 4. it is currently very difficult to roll version numbers forward,
>> >>> entries here and there are often missed. Far better to have
>> >>> branches/x.y have a few straggling old x.y.z-SNAPSHOT versions
>> >>> than a few overlooked x.y.z final numbers that needed to go back
>> >>> to SNAPSHOT -- they never leave SNAPSHOT and need to be reverted
>> >>> back later if that process happens in the frozen branch.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Here is my +1
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> -- David
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Jun 21, 2006, at 4:14 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> After the branches/1.1 was moved to tags there was some question
>> >>>> as to what happened to the 1.1 branch. At that time some kind
>> >>>> soul created a new branches/1.1.1. No activity has occurred in
>> >>>> that branch and given that we'll need to define the release
>> >>>> goals of 1.1.1 soon I'd like to propose the following.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> After 1.1 is released:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> * Delete branches/1.1.1
>> >>>> * Move branches/1.1.0 to tags/1.1.0
>> >>>> * Copy tags/1.1.0 to branches/1.1.1
>> >>>> * Update branches 1.1.1 to be 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT
>> >>>> * Start working on 1.1.1
>> >>>>
>> >>>> When 1.1.1 enters time for release
>> >>>>
>> >>>> * Move branches/1.1.1 to branches/1.1.1.0
>> >>>> * Change version from 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT to 1.1.1
>> >>>> * Create release candidate rc1
>> >>>> * put out for a vote
>> >>>> * get a successful vote with no respins :)
>> >>>> * move from branches/1.1.1.0 to tags/1.1.1.0
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Based on all the confusion in the past I think this procedure
>> >>>> makes it clear what phase were in for the release as well as
>> >>>> avoids tagging and branching repeatedly.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I'm looking for lazy consensus and not a formal vote.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Matt
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release branching process (was Re: Life After 1.1 - starting the new branch for 1.1.1 - some logistics and your input requested.)
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
+1, but if we cut a release from the frozen branch, we need to note
the SVN version number or something so when we move it to tags we're
absolutely sure we didn't catch an extra commit in the tag. I'm also
fine with copying to tags, making the candidate from tags, and then
recreating the tag if another release candidate turns out to be
necessary.
Thanks,
Aaron
On 6/22/06, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
> Okay, then +1
>
> --jason
>
>
> On Jun 21, 2006, at 10:19 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> > The only thing done in a branches/x.y.z made from branches/x.y is
> > the release process itself. When we agree we look good enough to
> > cut and run, we freeze, make the branch and put together a release
> > candidate. At the point of the freeze the release manager owns the
> > branches/x.y.z till the vote passes. That's the ideal scenario
> > anyway.
> >
> > -David
> >
> > On Jun 21, 2006, at 9:40 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> >
> >> Does this mean that the bulk of changes will be done on M.m
> >> branches and only release + minor changes done on M.m.r branches?
> >>
> >> --jason
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jun 21, 2006, at 6:52 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> >>
> >>> We had this whole conversation last week, lots of good discussion
> >>> was
> >>> had. I'd prefer not to have to have it again. Here is my exact
> >>> understanding of our consensus and would like to put it to a vote to
> >>> avoid reinterpretation of that consensus in the future.
> >>>
> >>> 1. branches/x.y would be the branch for all x.y.z releases
> >>>
> >>> 2. when a release is frozen, we spin off a branch with that
> >>> *exact*
> >>> name, as in branches/x.y.z, where z starts at zero and
> >>> increments
> >>> by one.
> >>>
> >>> 3. at that time branches/x.y is immediately updated to version
> >>> x.y.(z+1)-SNAPSHOT
> >>>
> >>> 3. We cut releases from the frozen branch
> >>>
> >>> 4. When a release passes final tck testing and final vote, the
> >>> frozen branch is moved to tags
> >>>
> >>> We create a branch at freeze time for the following reasons:
> >>>
> >>> 1. it takes *at least* one week from freeze to ship due to voting,
> >>> tck testing and potential repeats of that process (re-cut,
> >>> re-certify, re-vote). There is no reason why work on x.y.z+1
> >>> needs to be delayed -- only 52 weeks a year.
> >>>
> >>> 2. stronger guarantee no one is updating the branch once frozen
> >>>
> >>> 3. less likely that people and ci systems (continuum) will checkout
> >>> and build pre-release versions of x.y.z (not x.y.z-SNAPSHOT)
> >>> which
> >>> would need to be removed manually and may accidentally be
> >>> distributed.
> >>>
> >>> 4. it is currently very difficult to roll version numbers forward,
> >>> entries here and there are often missed. Far better to have
> >>> branches/x.y have a few straggling old x.y.z-SNAPSHOT versions
> >>> than a few overlooked x.y.z final numbers that needed to go back
> >>> to SNAPSHOT -- they never leave SNAPSHOT and need to be reverted
> >>> back later if that process happens in the frozen branch.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Here is my +1
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -- David
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Jun 21, 2006, at 4:14 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> After the branches/1.1 was moved to tags there was some question
> >>>> as to what happened to the 1.1 branch. At that time some kind
> >>>> soul created a new branches/1.1.1. No activity has occurred in
> >>>> that branch and given that we'll need to define the release
> >>>> goals of 1.1.1 soon I'd like to propose the following.
> >>>>
> >>>> After 1.1 is released:
> >>>>
> >>>> * Delete branches/1.1.1
> >>>> * Move branches/1.1.0 to tags/1.1.0
> >>>> * Copy tags/1.1.0 to branches/1.1.1
> >>>> * Update branches 1.1.1 to be 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT
> >>>> * Start working on 1.1.1
> >>>>
> >>>> When 1.1.1 enters time for release
> >>>>
> >>>> * Move branches/1.1.1 to branches/1.1.1.0
> >>>> * Change version from 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT to 1.1.1
> >>>> * Create release candidate rc1
> >>>> * put out for a vote
> >>>> * get a successful vote with no respins :)
> >>>> * move from branches/1.1.1.0 to tags/1.1.1.0
> >>>>
> >>>> Based on all the confusion in the past I think this procedure
> >>>> makes it clear what phase were in for the release as well as
> >>>> avoids tagging and branching repeatedly.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm looking for lazy consensus and not a formal vote.
> >>>>
> >>>> Matt
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release branching process (was Re: Life After 1.1 - starting the new branch for 1.1.1 - some logistics and your input requested.)
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
Okay, then +1
--jason
On Jun 21, 2006, at 10:19 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> The only thing done in a branches/x.y.z made from branches/x.y is
> the release process itself. When we agree we look good enough to
> cut and run, we freeze, make the branch and put together a release
> candidate. At the point of the freeze the release manager owns the
> branches/x.y.z till the vote passes. That's the ideal scenario
> anyway.
>
> -David
>
> On Jun 21, 2006, at 9:40 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>> Does this mean that the bulk of changes will be done on M.m
>> branches and only release + minor changes done on M.m.r branches?
>>
>> --jason
>>
>>
>> On Jun 21, 2006, at 6:52 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>> We had this whole conversation last week, lots of good discussion
>>> was
>>> had. I'd prefer not to have to have it again. Here is my exact
>>> understanding of our consensus and would like to put it to a vote to
>>> avoid reinterpretation of that consensus in the future.
>>>
>>> 1. branches/x.y would be the branch for all x.y.z releases
>>>
>>> 2. when a release is frozen, we spin off a branch with that
>>> *exact*
>>> name, as in branches/x.y.z, where z starts at zero and
>>> increments
>>> by one.
>>>
>>> 3. at that time branches/x.y is immediately updated to version
>>> x.y.(z+1)-SNAPSHOT
>>>
>>> 3. We cut releases from the frozen branch
>>>
>>> 4. When a release passes final tck testing and final vote, the
>>> frozen branch is moved to tags
>>>
>>> We create a branch at freeze time for the following reasons:
>>>
>>> 1. it takes *at least* one week from freeze to ship due to voting,
>>> tck testing and potential repeats of that process (re-cut,
>>> re-certify, re-vote). There is no reason why work on x.y.z+1
>>> needs to be delayed -- only 52 weeks a year.
>>>
>>> 2. stronger guarantee no one is updating the branch once frozen
>>>
>>> 3. less likely that people and ci systems (continuum) will checkout
>>> and build pre-release versions of x.y.z (not x.y.z-SNAPSHOT)
>>> which
>>> would need to be removed manually and may accidentally be
>>> distributed.
>>>
>>> 4. it is currently very difficult to roll version numbers forward,
>>> entries here and there are often missed. Far better to have
>>> branches/x.y have a few straggling old x.y.z-SNAPSHOT versions
>>> than a few overlooked x.y.z final numbers that needed to go back
>>> to SNAPSHOT -- they never leave SNAPSHOT and need to be reverted
>>> back later if that process happens in the frozen branch.
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is my +1
>>>
>>>
>>> -- David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 21, 2006, at 4:14 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> After the branches/1.1 was moved to tags there was some question
>>>> as to what happened to the 1.1 branch. At that time some kind
>>>> soul created a new branches/1.1.1. No activity has occurred in
>>>> that branch and given that we'll need to define the release
>>>> goals of 1.1.1 soon I'd like to propose the following.
>>>>
>>>> After 1.1 is released:
>>>>
>>>> * Delete branches/1.1.1
>>>> * Move branches/1.1.0 to tags/1.1.0
>>>> * Copy tags/1.1.0 to branches/1.1.1
>>>> * Update branches 1.1.1 to be 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT
>>>> * Start working on 1.1.1
>>>>
>>>> When 1.1.1 enters time for release
>>>>
>>>> * Move branches/1.1.1 to branches/1.1.1.0
>>>> * Change version from 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT to 1.1.1
>>>> * Create release candidate rc1
>>>> * put out for a vote
>>>> * get a successful vote with no respins :)
>>>> * move from branches/1.1.1.0 to tags/1.1.1.0
>>>>
>>>> Based on all the confusion in the past I think this procedure
>>>> makes it clear what phase were in for the release as well as
>>>> avoids tagging and branching repeatedly.
>>>>
>>>> I'm looking for lazy consensus and not a formal vote.
>>>>
>>>> Matt
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release branching process (was Re: Life After 1.1 - starting the new branch for 1.1.1 - some logistics and your input requested.)
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
The only thing done in a branches/x.y.z made from branches/x.y is the
release process itself. When we agree we look good enough to cut and
run, we freeze, make the branch and put together a release
candidate. At the point of the freeze the release manager owns the
branches/x.y.z till the vote passes. That's the ideal scenario anyway.
-David
On Jun 21, 2006, at 9:40 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> Does this mean that the bulk of changes will be done on M.m
> branches and only release + minor changes done on M.m.r branches?
>
> --jason
>
>
> On Jun 21, 2006, at 6:52 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>> We had this whole conversation last week, lots of good discussion was
>> had. I'd prefer not to have to have it again. Here is my exact
>> understanding of our consensus and would like to put it to a vote to
>> avoid reinterpretation of that consensus in the future.
>>
>> 1. branches/x.y would be the branch for all x.y.z releases
>>
>> 2. when a release is frozen, we spin off a branch with that *exact*
>> name, as in branches/x.y.z, where z starts at zero and
>> increments
>> by one.
>>
>> 3. at that time branches/x.y is immediately updated to version
>> x.y.(z+1)-SNAPSHOT
>>
>> 3. We cut releases from the frozen branch
>>
>> 4. When a release passes final tck testing and final vote, the
>> frozen branch is moved to tags
>>
>> We create a branch at freeze time for the following reasons:
>>
>> 1. it takes *at least* one week from freeze to ship due to voting,
>> tck testing and potential repeats of that process (re-cut,
>> re-certify, re-vote). There is no reason why work on x.y.z+1
>> needs to be delayed -- only 52 weeks a year.
>>
>> 2. stronger guarantee no one is updating the branch once frozen
>>
>> 3. less likely that people and ci systems (continuum) will checkout
>> and build pre-release versions of x.y.z (not x.y.z-SNAPSHOT)
>> which
>> would need to be removed manually and may accidentally be
>> distributed.
>>
>> 4. it is currently very difficult to roll version numbers forward,
>> entries here and there are often missed. Far better to have
>> branches/x.y have a few straggling old x.y.z-SNAPSHOT versions
>> than a few overlooked x.y.z final numbers that needed to go back
>> to SNAPSHOT -- they never leave SNAPSHOT and need to be reverted
>> back later if that process happens in the frozen branch.
>>
>>
>> Here is my +1
>>
>>
>> -- David
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 21, 2006, at 4:14 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>
>>> After the branches/1.1 was moved to tags there was some question
>>> as to what happened to the 1.1 branch. At that time some kind
>>> soul created a new branches/1.1.1. No activity has occurred in
>>> that branch and given that we'll need to define the release goals
>>> of 1.1.1 soon I'd like to propose the following.
>>>
>>> After 1.1 is released:
>>>
>>> * Delete branches/1.1.1
>>> * Move branches/1.1.0 to tags/1.1.0
>>> * Copy tags/1.1.0 to branches/1.1.1
>>> * Update branches 1.1.1 to be 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT
>>> * Start working on 1.1.1
>>>
>>> When 1.1.1 enters time for release
>>>
>>> * Move branches/1.1.1 to branches/1.1.1.0
>>> * Change version from 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT to 1.1.1
>>> * Create release candidate rc1
>>> * put out for a vote
>>> * get a successful vote with no respins :)
>>> * move from branches/1.1.1.0 to tags/1.1.1.0
>>>
>>> Based on all the confusion in the past I think this procedure
>>> makes it clear what phase were in for the release as well as
>>> avoids tagging and branching repeatedly.
>>>
>>> I'm looking for lazy consensus and not a formal vote.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Release branching process (was Re: Life After 1.1 - starting the new branch for 1.1.1 - some logistics and your input requested.)
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
Does this mean that the bulk of changes will be done on M.m branches
and only release + minor changes done on M.m.r branches?
--jason
On Jun 21, 2006, at 6:52 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> We had this whole conversation last week, lots of good discussion was
> had. I'd prefer not to have to have it again. Here is my exact
> understanding of our consensus and would like to put it to a vote to
> avoid reinterpretation of that consensus in the future.
>
> 1. branches/x.y would be the branch for all x.y.z releases
>
> 2. when a release is frozen, we spin off a branch with that *exact*
> name, as in branches/x.y.z, where z starts at zero and increments
> by one.
>
> 3. at that time branches/x.y is immediately updated to version
> x.y.(z+1)-SNAPSHOT
>
> 3. We cut releases from the frozen branch
>
> 4. When a release passes final tck testing and final vote, the
> frozen branch is moved to tags
>
> We create a branch at freeze time for the following reasons:
>
> 1. it takes *at least* one week from freeze to ship due to voting,
> tck testing and potential repeats of that process (re-cut,
> re-certify, re-vote). There is no reason why work on x.y.z+1
> needs to be delayed -- only 52 weeks a year.
>
> 2. stronger guarantee no one is updating the branch once frozen
>
> 3. less likely that people and ci systems (continuum) will checkout
> and build pre-release versions of x.y.z (not x.y.z-SNAPSHOT) which
> would need to be removed manually and may accidentally be
> distributed.
>
> 4. it is currently very difficult to roll version numbers forward,
> entries here and there are often missed. Far better to have
> branches/x.y have a few straggling old x.y.z-SNAPSHOT versions
> than a few overlooked x.y.z final numbers that needed to go back
> to SNAPSHOT -- they never leave SNAPSHOT and need to be reverted
> back later if that process happens in the frozen branch.
>
>
> Here is my +1
>
>
> -- David
>
>
>
> On Jun 21, 2006, at 4:14 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
>> After the branches/1.1 was moved to tags there was some question
>> as to what happened to the 1.1 branch. At that time some kind
>> soul created a new branches/1.1.1. No activity has occurred in
>> that branch and given that we'll need to define the release goals
>> of 1.1.1 soon I'd like to propose the following.
>>
>> After 1.1 is released:
>>
>> * Delete branches/1.1.1
>> * Move branches/1.1.0 to tags/1.1.0
>> * Copy tags/1.1.0 to branches/1.1.1
>> * Update branches 1.1.1 to be 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT
>> * Start working on 1.1.1
>>
>> When 1.1.1 enters time for release
>>
>> * Move branches/1.1.1 to branches/1.1.1.0
>> * Change version from 1.1.1-SNAPSHOT to 1.1.1
>> * Create release candidate rc1
>> * put out for a vote
>> * get a successful vote with no respins :)
>> * move from branches/1.1.1.0 to tags/1.1.1.0
>>
>> Based on all the confusion in the past I think this procedure
>> makes it clear what phase were in for the release as well as
>> avoids tagging and branching repeatedly.
>>
>> I'm looking for lazy consensus and not a formal vote.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>