You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomcat.apache.org by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org> on 2007/11/01 01:54:48 UTC
Re: Time to organise svn - Take 3
Mark Thomas wrote:
> svn cp
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/tc6.0.x/tags/TOMCAT_6_0_15
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/tc6.1.0/trunk
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/tc6.0.x/tags/TOMCAT_6_0_15
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/trunk
>
> Changes to .../trunk with be CTR
> Changes to .../6.1.x/trunk will be RTC
As per the previously published plan, I will create tomcat/tc6.1.x/trunk
and tomcat/trunk from the 6.0.15 tag. I plan to do this sometime on Friday
afternoon GMT. Any commits to 6.0.x/trunk between now and then I will apply
using CTR to trunk.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Time to organise svn - Take 3
Posted by jean-frederic clere <jf...@gmail.com>.
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
> Mark Thomas wrote:
>> jean-frederic clere wrote:
>>
>>> Why Friday? Shouldn't we wait until 6.0.15 (or 6.0.15 + n) is voted
>>> stable?
>>>
>>
>> We can do if that is the preference. My motivation is that I am keen
>> to get
>> back to a CTR codebase asap as I find only having RTC a real pain.
>>
> he he, I think everyone does, however two months ago you said
> "I don't see a need for a separate 6.0.x and 6.1.x development at this
> point. I have yet to see a convincing technical argument that there is
> something sufficiently new and/or different to justify this overhead."
>
> has anything changed since before when we had trunk and 6.0.x, to the
> point where we have more resources and more todos to maintain 6.0.x,
> 6.1.x and trunk? This is one more branch than we used to have.
>
> wouldn't it be better to hold of on the 6.1.x until there is a feature
> set for that release, and only have trunk. Otherwise we will have two
> 6.0.x branches, just one is named 6.1.x but there is nothing different
> with them
Yep. I also prefer to have only trunk based on 6.0.15 I don't think we
need 6.1.x for the moment. We should be able to make proposals for
tc6.0.x back porting using commits from trunk for a while.
Additional I think we should also create/prepare a ROADMAP in/for this
trunk to discuss what the new features we want to put inside.
Cheers
Jean-Frederic
>
>
> Filip
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Time to organise svn - Take 3
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
Filip Hanik - Dev Lists wrote:
> Mark Thomas wrote:
>> jean-frederic clere wrote:
>>
>>> Why Friday? Shouldn't we wait until 6.0.15 (or 6.0.15 + n) is voted
>>> stable?
>>>
>>s
>> We can do if that is the preference. My motivation is that I am keen
>> to get
>> back to a CTR codebase asap as I find only having RTC a real pain.
>>
> he he, I think everyone does, however two months ago you said
> "I don't see a need for a separate 6.0.x and 6.1.x development at this
> point. I have yet to see a convincing technical argument that there is
> something sufficiently new and/or different to justify this overhead."
>
> has anything changed since before when we had trunk and 6.0.x, to the
> point where we have more resources and more todos to maintain 6.0.x,
> 6.1.x and trunk? This is one more branch than we used to have.
Yes and no. What has changed is that we voted to move to a CTR dev branch
and a RTC stable branch. What hasn't changed is my view that we don't want
to be supporting multiple stable 6.x branches at the same time.
There are some API changes for Geronimo and possibly others that people
want to introduce. An API change == version bump, so we are heeding towards
a stable 6.2.x branch using RTC and a dev branch that is CTR. The question
is how we get there with the minimum of hassle (mainly duplicated effort)
for all concerned.
> wouldn't it be better to hold of on the 6.1.x until there is a feature
> set for that release, and only have trunk. Otherwise we will have two
> 6.0.x branches, just one is named 6.1.x but there is nothing different
> with them
I agree we don't want multiple stable branches. What my last proposal[1]
implied but did not make explicit is that the 6.0.x branch is frozen as
soon as 6.0.15 is voted stable. If it isn't voted stable, then we wait
until we have a stable 6.0.x and then move forward as per [1].
That said, your point about agreeing a the feature set is a good one. Your
comments have sparked off what I think is a better idea. Look out for take
4 of the svn organisation, arriving in your inbox later this afternoon.
Mark
[1] http://marc.info/?l=tomcat-dev&m=119170194116793&w=2
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Time to organise svn - Take 3
Posted by Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <de...@hanik.com>.
Mark Thomas wrote:
> jean-frederic clere wrote:
>
>> Why Friday? Shouldn't we wait until 6.0.15 (or 6.0.15 + n) is voted stable?
>>
>
> We can do if that is the preference. My motivation is that I am keen to get
> back to a CTR codebase asap as I find only having RTC a real pain.
>
he he, I think everyone does, however two months ago you said
"I don't see a need for a separate 6.0.x and 6.1.x development at this
point. I have yet to see a convincing technical argument that there is
something sufficiently new and/or different to justify this overhead."
has anything changed since before when we had trunk and 6.0.x, to the
point where we have more resources and more todos to maintain 6.0.x,
6.1.x and trunk? This is one more branch than we used to have.
wouldn't it be better to hold of on the 6.1.x until there is a feature
set for that release, and only have trunk. Otherwise we will have two
6.0.x branches, just one is named 6.1.x but there is nothing different
with them
Filip
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Time to organise svn - Take 3
Posted by Rémy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 10:03 +0000, Mark Thomas wrote:
> jean-frederic clere wrote:
> > Why Friday? Shouldn't we wait until 6.0.15 (or 6.0.15 + n) is voted
> stable?
>
> We can do if that is the preference. My motivation is that I am keen
> to get
> back to a CTR codebase asap as I find only having RTC a real pain.
Yes, this is why I had proposed less stringent process, inspired from
but not equivalent to the one from httpd (then my vote got hijacked).
Rémy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Time to organise svn - Take 3
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
jean-frederic clere wrote:
> Why Friday? Shouldn't we wait until 6.0.15 (or 6.0.15 + n) is voted stable?
We can do if that is the preference. My motivation is that I am keen to get
back to a CTR codebase asap as I find only having RTC a real pain.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Time to organise svn - Take 3
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Mark Thomas wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> Contrawise, why wait, and why a tag? Usually most efforts (in order to
>> preserve history) branch from trunk or branches, whereas tags/* reflect
>> an endpoint (end of history). Simply branch from 6.0.x unless there are
>> dirty secrets buried in there :)
>
> Because 6.0.15 (assuming it is stable) is intended to be the end of the
> 6.0.x branch. It is expected that the tag 6.0.15 == 6.0.x trunk.
Just to clear things up, I've made my share of svn mistakes, and using the
tags/* result for anything other than and endpoint is one that I lived to
regret (my doing, so my dogfood.)
Assuming cp /branches/6.0.x /tags/6.0.15 happened at r678123, it's vastly
still preferable to cp -r678123 /branches/6.0.x /trunk/ - that was my point,
not what code y'all are agreeing to use, nor how many trunks and branches
y'all want to struggle with :)
Consider all the recent rearrangement of tags/ you made, this isn't something
you want to have to struggle to unwind four years from now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Time to organise svn - Take 3
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> jean-frederic clere wrote:
>> Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> Mark Thomas wrote:
>>>> svn cp
>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/tc6.0.x/tags/TOMCAT_6_0_15
>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/tc6.1.0/trunk
>>>>
>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/tc6.0.x/tags/TOMCAT_6_0_15
>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/trunk
>>>>
>>>> Changes to .../trunk with be CTR
>>>> Changes to .../6.1.x/trunk will be RTC
>>> As per the previously published plan, I will create tomcat/tc6.1.x/trunk
>>> and tomcat/trunk from the 6.0.15 tag. I plan to do this sometime on
>>> Friday
>>> afternoon GMT.
>>
>> Why Friday? Shouldn't we wait until 6.0.15 (or 6.0.15 + n) is voted
>> stable?
>
> Contrawise, why wait, and why a tag? Usually most efforts (in order to
> preserve history) branch from trunk or branches, whereas tags/* reflect
> an endpoint (end of history). Simply branch from 6.0.x unless there are
> dirty secrets buried in there :)
Because 6.0.15 (assuming it is stable) is intended to be the end of the
6.0.x branch. It is expected that the tag 6.0.15 == 6.0.x trunk.
There was a long discussion in this thread:
http://marc.info/?t=119154952900016&r=1&w=2
which was distilled into a new proposal:
http://marc.info/?l=tomcat-dev&m=119170194116793&w=2
Mark
>
> Bill
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Time to organise svn - Take 3
Posted by Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <de...@hanik.com>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> jean-frederic clere wrote:
>> Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> Mark Thomas wrote:
>>>> svn cp
>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/tc6.0.x/tags/TOMCAT_6_0_15
>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/tc6.1.0/trunk
>>>>
>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/tc6.0.x/tags/TOMCAT_6_0_15
>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/trunk
>>>>
>>>> Changes to .../trunk with be CTR
>>>> Changes to .../6.1.x/trunk will be RTC
>>> As per the previously published plan, I will create
>>> tomcat/tc6.1.x/trunk
>>> and tomcat/trunk from the 6.0.15 tag. I plan to do this sometime on
>>> Friday
>>> afternoon GMT.
>>
>> Why Friday? Shouldn't we wait until 6.0.15 (or 6.0.15 + n) is voted
>> stable?
>
> Contrawise, why wait, and why a tag? Usually most efforts (in order to
> preserve history) branch from trunk or branches, whereas tags/* reflect
> an endpoint (end of history). Simply branch from 6.0.x unless there are
> dirty secrets buried in there :)
one reason we would wait, is cause there are no ongoing efforts. at
least none that are documented, and as Mark said two months ago,
"I don't see a need for a separate 6.0.x and 6.1.x development at this
point. I have yet to see a convincing technical argument that there is
something sufficiently new and/or different to justify this overhead."
we still haven't documented what this "ongoing effort would be" nor have
we agreed on it.
From what it sounds like right now, and the technical argument and the
reason to get a trunk, would be to have more liberty adding in fixes and
patches,and then have an easier way to propose it back to be a fix in 6.0.
Filip
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Time to organise svn - Take 3
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
jean-frederic clere wrote:
> Mark Thomas wrote:
>> Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> svn cp
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/tc6.0.x/tags/TOMCAT_6_0_15
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/tc6.1.0/trunk
>>>
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/tc6.0.x/tags/TOMCAT_6_0_15
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/trunk
>>>
>>> Changes to .../trunk with be CTR
>>> Changes to .../6.1.x/trunk will be RTC
>> As per the previously published plan, I will create tomcat/tc6.1.x/trunk
>> and tomcat/trunk from the 6.0.15 tag. I plan to do this sometime on Friday
>> afternoon GMT.
>
> Why Friday? Shouldn't we wait until 6.0.15 (or 6.0.15 + n) is voted stable?
Contrawise, why wait, and why a tag? Usually most efforts (in order to
preserve history) branch from trunk or branches, whereas tags/* reflect
an endpoint (end of history). Simply branch from 6.0.x unless there are
dirty secrets buried in there :)
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Time to organise svn - Take 3
Posted by Peter Rossbach <pr...@objektpark.de>.
Good point
+1
Peter
Am 01.11.2007 um 09:51 schrieb jean-frederic clere:
> Mark Thomas wrote:
>> Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> svn cp
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/tc6.0.x/tags/TOMCAT_6_0_15
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/tc6.1.0/trunk
>>>
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/tc6.0.x/tags/TOMCAT_6_0_15
>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/trunk
>>>
>>> Changes to .../trunk with be CTR
>>> Changes to .../6.1.x/trunk will be RTC
>>
>> As per the previously published plan, I will create tomcat/tc6.1.x/
>> trunk
>> and tomcat/trunk from the 6.0.15 tag. I plan to do this sometime
>> on Friday
>> afternoon GMT.
>
> Why Friday? Shouldn't we wait until 6.0.15 (or 6.0.15 + n) is voted
> stable?
>
> Cheers
>
> Jean-Frederic
>
>> Any commits to 6.0.x/trunk between now and then I will apply
>> using CTR to trunk.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
Re: Time to organise svn - Take 3
Posted by jean-frederic clere <jf...@gmail.com>.
Mark Thomas wrote:
> Mark Thomas wrote:
>> svn cp
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/tc6.0.x/tags/TOMCAT_6_0_15
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/tc6.1.0/trunk
>>
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/tc6.0.x/tags/TOMCAT_6_0_15
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/trunk
>>
>> Changes to .../trunk with be CTR
>> Changes to .../6.1.x/trunk will be RTC
>
> As per the previously published plan, I will create tomcat/tc6.1.x/trunk
> and tomcat/trunk from the 6.0.15 tag. I plan to do this sometime on Friday
> afternoon GMT.
Why Friday? Shouldn't we wait until 6.0.15 (or 6.0.15 + n) is voted stable?
Cheers
Jean-Frederic
> Any commits to 6.0.x/trunk between now and then I will apply
> using CTR to trunk.
>
> Mark
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org