You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org> on 2005/09/17 22:04:47 UTC
Re: svn commit: r289835 - /geronimo/branches/v1_0_M4-QA/
Didn't we decide not to do this?
We leave the branch as well, so if someone wants to evolve it and
tag, they can...
geir
On Sep 17, 2005, at 1:39 PM, dain@apache.org wrote:
> Author: dain
> Date: Sat Sep 17 10:39:10 2005
> New Revision: 289835
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=289835&view=rev
> Log:
> This branch is old and should have been deleted a long time ago.
> The official m4 code can be found in tags/v1_0_M4/
>
> Removed:
> geronimo/branches/v1_0_M4-QA/
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: svn commit: r289835 - /geronimo/branches/v1_0_M4-QA/
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Sep 19, 2005, at 11:17 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> Geir, if your statement were factually correct I would agree with
> you, but we have not lost or hid any history. Go see for yourself.
I never said we lost anything. We are hiding it because you can't go
look at our structure of branches and tags and get a clear picture.
>
> $ cd tags/v1_0_M4
> $ svn log project.properties
> or
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/geronimo/tags/v1_0_M4/
> project.properties?rev=227113&view=log
>
> You will find the entire history fir that file including all move
> and copy commands.
>
> Regardless, if you think it is so important to have two copies of
> the same code in our active tree, then you resurrect the code.
We could save even more space by deleting the tag as well :)
I do think it's important that we have a clear and straightforward
process for this. Again, putting aside the aversion to doing updates
to milestones, I think that we will be keeping branches around in
general, and doing one or more tags from them.
Right now, if we did an update to M4, we'd have to bring the branch
back, work on it, and then tag again. Then what do we do? Delete
the branch again? I think we'd leave it.
if diskspace or confusion is a real problem, one solution is to keep
a tag log of just revision numbers, since that is what we want to
record as our tags.
Suppose
/tags/
tag_M4.txt
tag_M4.1.txt
tag_M5.txt
which contains something like
svn co -r WHATEVER https://......./branchs/M4/ M4_release
or ish, which captures the code that was released in a repeatable way?
So if someone wanted to get exactly what was in a release, they would
just execute what was in the file for that tag....
geir
>
> -dain
>
> On Sep 19, 2005, at 6:30 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>
>> Right, so deleting doesn't remove anything.
>>
>> I think that hiding our history like this is a bad idea, and will
>> lead to even more confusion - if you don't want to make a mistake
>> and work on a branch accidentally, don't check it out.
>>
>> Anyway, I can't see how removing the branch will prevent mistakes
>> while leaving the tag entry there. It looks the same.
>>
>> geir
>>
>> On Sep 18, 2005, at 7:17 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Just to remind everyone, svn doesn't have branches or tags and
>>> nothing is ever gone or deleted, everything is still around, and
>>> at any point in time we can patch an old release if we feel it's
>>> really necessary.
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
>> geirm@apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: svn commit: r289835 - /geronimo/branches/v1_0_M4-QA/
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
Geir, if your statement were factually correct I would agree with
you, but we have not lost or hid any history. Go see for yourself.
$ cd tags/v1_0_M4
$ svn log project.properties
or
http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/geronimo/tags/v1_0_M4/
project.properties?rev=227113&view=log
You will find the entire history fir that file including all move and
copy commands.
Regardless, if you think it is so important to have two copies of the
same code in our active tree, then you resurrect the code.
-dain
On Sep 19, 2005, at 6:30 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> Right, so deleting doesn't remove anything.
>
> I think that hiding our history like this is a bad idea, and will
> lead to even more confusion - if you don't want to make a mistake
> and work on a branch accidentally, don't check it out.
>
> Anyway, I can't see how removing the branch will prevent mistakes
> while leaving the tag entry there. It looks the same.
>
> geir
>
> On Sep 18, 2005, at 7:17 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>
>> Just to remind everyone, svn doesn't have branches or tags and
>> nothing is ever gone or deleted, everything is still around, and
>> at any point in time we can patch an old release if we feel it's
>> really necessary.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
> geirm@apache.org
>
>
Re: svn commit: r289835 - /geronimo/branches/v1_0_M4-QA/
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
On Sep 19, 2005, at 6:36 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> I agree with Geir in that I think that we should have kept the
> branch; even though it is widely accepted that we will not extend
> it with a patch, it's just good form to do things in a consistent
> standard way.
Well given that Geir was wrong about the loosing/hiding history, do
you still want an entry listed in tags and branches for the same
code. I personally think this is a bad idea especially in light of
the "widely accepted [understanding] that we will not extend it with
a patch". It will just confuse users (including myself).
-dain
Re: svn commit: r289835 - /geronimo/branches/v1_0_M4-QA/
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
I agree with Geir in that I think that we should have kept the branch;
even though it is widely accepted that we will not extend it with a
patch, it's just good form to do things in a consistent standard way.
What confused me when I responded to Dain's original request was the QA
suffix.
Regards,
Alan
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote, On 9/19/2005 6:30 AM:
> Right, so deleting doesn't remove anything.
>
> I think that hiding our history like this is a bad idea, and will
> lead to even more confusion - if you don't want to make a mistake and
> work on a branch accidentally, don't check it out.
>
> Anyway, I can't see how removing the branch will prevent mistakes
> while leaving the tag entry there. It looks the same.
>
> geir
>
> On Sep 18, 2005, at 7:17 PM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>> Just to remind everyone, svn doesn't have branches or tags and
>> nothing is ever gone or deleted, everything is still around, and at
>> any point in time we can patch an old release if we feel it's really
>> necessary.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>
Re: svn commit: r289835 - /geronimo/branches/v1_0_M4-QA/
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
Right, so deleting doesn't remove anything.
I think that hiding our history like this is a bad idea, and will
lead to even more confusion - if you don't want to make a mistake and
work on a branch accidentally, don't check it out.
Anyway, I can't see how removing the branch will prevent mistakes
while leaving the tag entry there. It looks the same.
geir
On Sep 18, 2005, at 7:17 PM, David Blevins wrote:
> Just to remind everyone, svn doesn't have branches or tags and
> nothing is ever gone or deleted, everything is still around, and at
> any point in time we can patch an old release if we feel it's
> really necessary.
>
> -David
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: svn commit: r289835 - /geronimo/branches/v1_0_M4-QA/
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
Just to remind everyone, svn doesn't have branches or tags and
nothing is ever gone or deleted, everything is still around, and at
any point in time we can patch an old release if we feel it's really
necessary.
-David
Re: svn commit: r289835 - /geronimo/branches/v1_0_M4-QA/
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
I don't care what we do with M4, but for any release we plan to
maintain, I think we need to keep branches around indefinitely. If
people are going to confuse branches and tags, then I think we need to
solve that with documentation on our source page or releases page or
something.
Aaron
On 9/18/05, Geir Magnusson Jr. <ge...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On Sep 17, 2005, at 5:34 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
> > Geir, I sent and email about this and the feedback I got was "do it".
>
> Yes, at 1 a.m. yesterday, and two responses. I didn't get to dev
> list mail yesterday due to bringing home wife and new baby from
> hospital.
>
> >
> > Regardless, we don't want this branch, the tag contains the real M4
> > code so the QA branch we created for testing M4 is confusing to
> > users (like me).
>
> No. Branches contain the code. The tag is a pointer to a moment in
> time on a branch. Putting aside the never-ending-argument about
> whether or not a security fix like M4.1 is possible due to naming
> preferences, what would happen if we had a horrible security or other
> problem that required us to distribute a patched release?
>
> We would work on the branch, make a new tag, and test and release
> that. I think we need to keep our branches around.
>
> geir
>
> >
> > -dain
> >
> > On Sep 17, 2005, at 1:04 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Didn't we decide not to do this?
> >>
> >> We leave the branch as well, so if someone wants to evolve it and
> >> tag, they can...
> >>
> >> geir
> >>
> >> On Sep 17, 2005, at 1:39 PM, dain@apache.org wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Author: dain
> >>> Date: Sat Sep 17 10:39:10 2005
> >>> New Revision: 289835
> >>>
> >>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=289835&view=rev
> >>> Log:
> >>> This branch is old and should have been deleted a long time ago.
> >>> The official m4 code can be found in tags/v1_0_M4/
> >>>
> >>> Removed:
> >>> geronimo/branches/v1_0_M4-QA/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
> >> geirm@apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
> geirm@apache.org
>
>
>
Re: svn commit: r289835 - /geronimo/branches/v1_0_M4-QA/
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On Sep 17, 2005, at 5:34 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> Geir, I sent and email about this and the feedback I got was "do it".
Yes, at 1 a.m. yesterday, and two responses. I didn't get to dev
list mail yesterday due to bringing home wife and new baby from
hospital.
>
> Regardless, we don't want this branch, the tag contains the real M4
> code so the QA branch we created for testing M4 is confusing to
> users (like me).
No. Branches contain the code. The tag is a pointer to a moment in
time on a branch. Putting aside the never-ending-argument about
whether or not a security fix like M4.1 is possible due to naming
preferences, what would happen if we had a horrible security or other
problem that required us to distribute a patched release?
We would work on the branch, make a new tag, and test and release
that. I think we need to keep our branches around.
geir
>
> -dain
>
> On Sep 17, 2005, at 1:04 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
>
>> Didn't we decide not to do this?
>>
>> We leave the branch as well, so if someone wants to evolve it and
>> tag, they can...
>>
>> geir
>>
>> On Sep 17, 2005, at 1:39 PM, dain@apache.org wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Author: dain
>>> Date: Sat Sep 17 10:39:10 2005
>>> New Revision: 289835
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=289835&view=rev
>>> Log:
>>> This branch is old and should have been deleted a long time ago.
>>> The official m4 code can be found in tags/v1_0_M4/
>>>
>>> Removed:
>>> geronimo/branches/v1_0_M4-QA/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
>> geirm@apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
Re: svn commit: r289835 - /geronimo/branches/v1_0_M4-QA/
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
Geir, I sent and email about this and the feedback I got was "do it".
Regardless, we don't want this branch, the tag contains the real M4
code so the QA branch we created for testing M4 is confusing to users
(like me).
-dain
On Sep 17, 2005, at 1:04 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> Didn't we decide not to do this?
>
> We leave the branch as well, so if someone wants to evolve it and
> tag, they can...
>
> geir
>
> On Sep 17, 2005, at 1:39 PM, dain@apache.org wrote:
>
>
>> Author: dain
>> Date: Sat Sep 17 10:39:10 2005
>> New Revision: 289835
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=289835&view=rev
>> Log:
>> This branch is old and should have been deleted a long time ago.
>> The official m4 code can be found in tags/v1_0_M4/
>>
>> Removed:
>> geronimo/branches/v1_0_M4-QA/
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
> geirm@apache.org
>
>