purpose of branches\1.2

[Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com>]

What is the purpose of branches\1.2 as it stands now?  Can fixes targeted
for "1.x" be committed to this branch?  If not, where should this ffixes
go?  Can fixes for JIRAs marked as "Improvement" be still committed to
branches\1.2 and designated as fixed in "1.2"?

--vamsi

Re: purpose of branches\1.2

[Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>]

Yep.  The branches\1.2 tree is being stabilized an Rick is finishing  
the Yoko integration.  Bug fixes are fine but I ask you to be extra  
careful since I hope to ship this as soon as the Yoko integration  
passes the TCK.

-dain

On Dec 27, 2006, at 10:32 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:

> Are there new features for 1.2 already?
>
> Since it takes a while for us to get releases out, its probably  
> best to minimize non-bugfix changes to the branch, though I suppose  
> if its a minor improvement that is should be fine, major feature  
> work should be avoided (preferring that for 2.0 actually).
>
> During this stabilization of 1.2 I would say that anything outside  
> of a bugfix should probably be presented to the list for direction  
> as to if it should go into 1.2, wait until 1.2 is out, or just in  
> 2.0.  And then lets just take it case by case.  I think its okay  
> for new bits to get added to a beta.  And hopefully soon when we  
> get to RCx then we will have a faster turn around to get a release  
> out.
>
> --jason
>
>
> On Dec 27, 2006, at 10:22 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
>
>> Hi Jason,
>>
>> Thank you for your clarification.  Since 1.2 beta is out, I was  
>> under the impression that we will be stabilizing the 1.2 branch  
>> and not put any new functions/improvements.  New functions/ 
>> improvements can still go into 1.x.  My confusion was whether to  
>> hold back commits to branches\1.2 unless it is a bug fix.  As for  
>> the bug fixes, they will go into all relevant branches.
>>
>> --vamsi
>>
>> On 12/28/06, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote: Um... its  
>> where code for the 1.2* line of Geronimo goes.
>>
>> I'd imagine that if a a fix for "1.x" is applicable for the 1.2 line
>> then it could be committed there, probably also to branches/1.1 too
>> if its a bug fix for both.
>>
>> Sure improvement fixes can still go into 1.2, and be marked for fix
>> in 1.2, since 1.2 is not yet out the door.  Once 1.2 is officially
>> out, then bugs/whatever for the 1.2 line will go into branches/1.2
>> and should be marked for fix in "1.2.1", etc.
>>
>> This seems kinda obvious to me... maybe I'm missing something in your
>> question?
>>
>> --jason
>>
>>
>> On Dec 27, 2006, at 8:24 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
>>
>> > What is the purpose of branches\1.2 as it stands now?  Can fixes
>> > targeted for "1.x" be committed to this branch?  If not, where
>> > should this ffixes go?  Can fixes for JIRAs marked as "Improvement"
>> > be still committed to branches\1.2 and designated as fixed in  
>> "1.2"?
>> >
>> > --vamsi
>>
>>
>

Re: purpose of branches\1.2

[Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>]

Are there new features for 1.2 already?

Since it takes a while for us to get releases out, its probably best  
to minimize non-bugfix changes to the branch, though I suppose if its  
a minor improvement that is should be fine, major feature work should  
be avoided (preferring that for 2.0 actually).

During this stabilization of 1.2 I would say that anything outside of  
a bugfix should probably be presented to the list for direction as to  
if it should go into 1.2, wait until 1.2 is out, or just in 2.0.  And  
then lets just take it case by case.  I think its okay for new bits  
to get added to a beta.  And hopefully soon when we get to RCx then  
we will have a faster turn around to get a release out.

--jason


On Dec 27, 2006, at 10:22 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:

> Hi Jason,
>
> Thank you for your clarification.  Since 1.2 beta is out, I was  
> under the impression that we will be stabilizing the 1.2 branch and  
> not put any new functions/improvements.  New functions/improvements  
> can still go into 1.x.  My confusion was whether to hold back  
> commits to branches\1.2 unless it is a bug fix.  As for the bug  
> fixes, they will go into all relevant branches.
>
> --vamsi
>
> On 12/28/06, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
> Um... its where code for the 1.2* line of Geronimo goes.
>
> I'd imagine that if a a fix for "1.x" is applicable for the 1.2 line
> then it could be committed there, probably also to branches/1.1 too
> if its a bug fix for both.
>
> Sure improvement fixes can still go into 1.2, and be marked for fix
> in 1.2, since 1.2 is not yet out the door.  Once 1.2 is officially
> out, then bugs/whatever for the 1.2 line will go into branches/1.2
> and should be marked for fix in "1.2.1", etc.
>
> This seems kinda obvious to me... maybe I'm missing something in your
> question?
>
> --jason
>
>
> On Dec 27, 2006, at 8:24 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
>
> > What is the purpose of branches\1.2 as it stands now?  Can fixes
> > targeted for "1.x" be committed to this branch?  If not, where
> > should this ffixes go?  Can fixes for JIRAs marked as "Improvement"
> > be still committed to branches\1.2 and designated as fixed in "1.2"?
> >
> > --vamsi
>
>

Re: purpose of branches\1.2

[Vamsavardhana Reddy <c1...@gmail.com>]

Hi Jason,

Thank you for your clarification.  Since 1.2 beta is out, I was under the
impression that we will be stabilizing the 1.2 branch and not put any new
functions/improvements.  New functions/improvements can still go into 1.x.
My confusion was whether to hold back commits to branches\1.2 unless it is a
bug fix.  As for the bug fixes, they will go into all relevant branches.

--vamsi

On 12/28/06, Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com> wrote:
>
> Um... its where code for the 1.2* line of Geronimo goes.
>
> I'd imagine that if a a fix for "1.x" is applicable for the 1.2 line
> then it could be committed there, probably also to branches/1.1 too
> if its a bug fix for both.
>
> Sure improvement fixes can still go into 1.2, and be marked for fix
> in 1.2, since 1.2 is not yet out the door.  Once 1.2 is officially
> out, then bugs/whatever for the 1.2 line will go into branches/1.2
> and should be marked for fix in "1.2.1", etc.
>
> This seems kinda obvious to me... maybe I'm missing something in your
> question?
>
> --jason
>
>
> On Dec 27, 2006, at 8:24 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:
>
> > What is the purpose of branches\1.2 as it stands now?  Can fixes
> > targeted for "1.x" be committed to this branch?  If not, where
> > should this ffixes go?  Can fixes for JIRAs marked as "Improvement"
> > be still committed to branches\1.2 and designated as fixed in "1.2"?
> >
> > --vamsi
>
>

Re: purpose of branches\1.2

[Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>]

Um... its where code for the 1.2* line of Geronimo goes.

I'd imagine that if a a fix for "1.x" is applicable for the 1.2 line  
then it could be committed there, probably also to branches/1.1 too  
if its a bug fix for both.

Sure improvement fixes can still go into 1.2, and be marked for fix  
in 1.2, since 1.2 is not yet out the door.  Once 1.2 is officially  
out, then bugs/whatever for the 1.2 line will go into branches/1.2  
and should be marked for fix in "1.2.1", etc.

This seems kinda obvious to me... maybe I'm missing something in your  
question?

--jason


On Dec 27, 2006, at 8:24 PM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote:

> What is the purpose of branches\1.2 as it stands now?  Can fixes  
> targeted for "1.x" be committed to this branch?  If not, where  
> should this ffixes go?  Can fixes for JIRAs marked as "Improvement"  
> be still committed to branches\1.2 and designated as fixed in "1.2"?
>
> --vamsi