You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openjpa.apache.org by Jeremy Bauer <te...@gmail.com> on 2008/12/03 16:03:46 UTC
OpenJPA 2.0 milestone releases
OpenJPA dev's,
Now that we have a few iteration periods defined and are getting content
into iteration 1, I think we should consider planning OpenJPA 2.0 milestone
releases. Based on a 3 (sometimes 4) week iteration schedule and the fact
that it takes ~ a week to create and publish a release, how does a milestone
release every other (ie. after each even numbered) iteration sound? If we
discover that a milestone release every other iteration is not optimal, we
can adjust as appropriate.
-Jeremy
Re: OpenJPA 2.0 milestone releases
Posted by Kevin Sutter <kw...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Jeremy Bauer <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OpenJPA dev's,
> Now that we have a few iteration periods defined and are getting content
> into iteration 1, I think we should consider planning OpenJPA 2.0 milestone
> releases. Based on a 3 (sometimes 4) week iteration schedule and the fact
> that it takes ~ a week to create and publish a release, how does a
> milestone
> release every other (ie. after each even numbered) iteration sound? If we
> discover that a milestone release every other iteration is not optimal, we
> can adjust as appropriate.
>
> -Jeremy
>
Re: OpenJPA 2.0 milestone releases
Posted by Jeremy Bauer <te...@gmail.com>.
There haven't been any new opinions on this issue in a while and I'm leaning
toward Mike's suggestion of only using Mx to publish to the snapshot
repository. Unless I hear a strong opinion otherwise, I'll remove the
milestone identifier from version, allowing users to more easily consume the
daily snapshot builds. Thanks, Craig, for raising this issue.
+1 for creating JIRA milestone releases w/o branching. I too think it'll
help with issue tracking.
-Jeremy
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Michael Dick <mi...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Jeremy Bauer <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Mike,
> > I was thinking the same thing. Providing milestone releases as an
> OpenJPA
> > published, mostly stable, tested release with clear definition of the new
> > function it includes. Based on Craig's observation, I don't know that
> > means
> > we have to include the -Mx- identifier in the builds though. I think it
> > would help us (dev) and users identify which milestone version of code is
> > in
> > development and use, but it does have obvious maintenance implications.
> If
> > we do not publish official maven releases maybe Mx it isn't required -
> > could
> > we add the Mx at the point when we do the milestone build?
> >
>
> There's no reason why we can't add Mx at a later time. That would be a
> benefit to users who always want the latest snapshot, regardless of the
> milestone.
>
> Users who want a specific milestone can specify the latest one from the
> snapshot repos (or central if we do a formal release).
>
>
> >
> > Regarding a maven publish, is it possible to publish a release to the
> maven
> > repository, say an M1 release and not branch off or create a
> corresponding
> > M1 release in JIRA? It may be useful to publish milestone releases in
> > maven
> > (for those who use maven), but not add the overhead of creating an svn
> > branch which we do not intend (and wouldn't make sense) to maintain.
> >
>
> JIRA versions and Maven releases are totally separate entities (pun not
> intended). Similarly a release in JIRA is not necessarily tied to a branch
> in SVN.
>
> I'd be inclined to publish Mx builds to the SNAPSHOT repository (less
> stringent checking - quicker to publish). Create a JIRA release for it (so
> we can track when issues crop up and when they're fixed). Create a tag in
> SVN for easy access, but do not create a branch.
>
> I'm open to other ideas though,
>
> -mike
>
>
> >
> > -Jeremy
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:50 PM, Michael Dick <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Craig,
> > >
> > > I think it depends on how official we want to make the milestone
> > releases.
> > > I
> > > was thinking of the milestones being "smaller" convenience releases,
> not
> > > "official" releases that get published to maven central. When we cut a
> > > milestone release we'd leave it in the SNAPSHOT repository so that
> folks
> > > can
> > > test a stable(ish) version. At the same time it wouldn't be an official
> > > release with all the overhead and additional work that implies
> > (maintenance
> > > branch?).
> > >
> > > What do other people think?
> > >
> > > -mike
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@sun.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Jeremy,
> > > >
> > > > I don't understand why the version needs to be changed from simply
> > > > 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT to 2.0.0-Mx-SNAPSHOT. Seems like we would be making
> > > trouble
> > > > for folks who want to use the release. Wouldn't we want to make the
> > > change
> > > > at the time we want to release, e.g. from 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT to 2.0.0-M2?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Craig
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Dec 4, 2008, at 8:11 AM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Three in favor, no oppose. Motion passes. :-)
> > > >> The build artifacts for each milestone will be named
> > > >> openjpa*-2.0.0-Mx-SNAPSHOT.jar, where x is the milestone number.
> I'll
> > > >> commit the pom updates for M1 shortly.
> > > >>
> > > >> -Jeremy
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:40 AM, Albert Lee <al...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> +1.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Albert Lee.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Jeremy Bauer <te...@gmail.com>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> OpenJPA dev's,
> > > >>>> Now that we have a few iteration periods defined and are getting
> > > content
> > > >>>> into iteration 1, I think we should consider planning OpenJPA 2.0
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> milestone
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> releases. Based on a 3 (sometimes 4) week iteration schedule and
> > the
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> fact
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> that it takes ~ a week to create and publish a release, how does a
> > > >>>> milestone
> > > >>>> release every other (ie. after each even numbered) iteration
> sound?
> > > If
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> we
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> discover that a milestone release every other iteration is not
> > > optimal,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> we
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> can adjust as appropriate.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> -Jeremy
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> Albert Lee.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > > Craig L Russell
> > > > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
> > > > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> > > > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: OpenJPA 2.0 milestone releases
Posted by Michael Dick <mi...@gmail.com>.
Hi Jeremy,
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Jeremy Bauer <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mike,
> I was thinking the same thing. Providing milestone releases as an OpenJPA
> published, mostly stable, tested release with clear definition of the new
> function it includes. Based on Craig's observation, I don't know that
> means
> we have to include the -Mx- identifier in the builds though. I think it
> would help us (dev) and users identify which milestone version of code is
> in
> development and use, but it does have obvious maintenance implications. If
> we do not publish official maven releases maybe Mx it isn't required -
> could
> we add the Mx at the point when we do the milestone build?
>
There's no reason why we can't add Mx at a later time. That would be a
benefit to users who always want the latest snapshot, regardless of the
milestone.
Users who want a specific milestone can specify the latest one from the
snapshot repos (or central if we do a formal release).
>
> Regarding a maven publish, is it possible to publish a release to the maven
> repository, say an M1 release and not branch off or create a corresponding
> M1 release in JIRA? It may be useful to publish milestone releases in
> maven
> (for those who use maven), but not add the overhead of creating an svn
> branch which we do not intend (and wouldn't make sense) to maintain.
>
JIRA versions and Maven releases are totally separate entities (pun not
intended). Similarly a release in JIRA is not necessarily tied to a branch
in SVN.
I'd be inclined to publish Mx builds to the SNAPSHOT repository (less
stringent checking - quicker to publish). Create a JIRA release for it (so
we can track when issues crop up and when they're fixed). Create a tag in
SVN for easy access, but do not create a branch.
I'm open to other ideas though,
-mike
>
> -Jeremy
>
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:50 PM, Michael Dick <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Craig,
> >
> > I think it depends on how official we want to make the milestone
> releases.
> > I
> > was thinking of the milestones being "smaller" convenience releases, not
> > "official" releases that get published to maven central. When we cut a
> > milestone release we'd leave it in the SNAPSHOT repository so that folks
> > can
> > test a stable(ish) version. At the same time it wouldn't be an official
> > release with all the overhead and additional work that implies
> (maintenance
> > branch?).
> >
> > What do other people think?
> >
> > -mike
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@sun.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Jeremy,
> > >
> > > I don't understand why the version needs to be changed from simply
> > > 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT to 2.0.0-Mx-SNAPSHOT. Seems like we would be making
> > trouble
> > > for folks who want to use the release. Wouldn't we want to make the
> > change
> > > at the time we want to release, e.g. from 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT to 2.0.0-M2?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Craig
> > >
> > >
> > > On Dec 4, 2008, at 8:11 AM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
> > >
> > > Three in favor, no oppose. Motion passes. :-)
> > >> The build artifacts for each milestone will be named
> > >> openjpa*-2.0.0-Mx-SNAPSHOT.jar, where x is the milestone number. I'll
> > >> commit the pom updates for M1 shortly.
> > >>
> > >> -Jeremy
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:40 AM, Albert Lee <al...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> +1.
> > >>>
> > >>> Albert Lee.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Jeremy Bauer <te...@gmail.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> OpenJPA dev's,
> > >>>> Now that we have a few iteration periods defined and are getting
> > content
> > >>>> into iteration 1, I think we should consider planning OpenJPA 2.0
> > >>>>
> > >>> milestone
> > >>>
> > >>>> releases. Based on a 3 (sometimes 4) week iteration schedule and
> the
> > >>>>
> > >>> fact
> > >>>
> > >>>> that it takes ~ a week to create and publish a release, how does a
> > >>>> milestone
> > >>>> release every other (ie. after each even numbered) iteration sound?
> > If
> > >>>>
> > >>> we
> > >>>
> > >>>> discover that a milestone release every other iteration is not
> > optimal,
> > >>>>
> > >>> we
> > >>>
> > >>>> can adjust as appropriate.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -Jeremy
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Albert Lee.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > > Craig L Russell
> > > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
> > > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> > > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: OpenJPA 2.0 milestone releases
Posted by Jeremy Bauer <te...@gmail.com>.
Mike,
I was thinking the same thing. Providing milestone releases as an OpenJPA
published, mostly stable, tested release with clear definition of the new
function it includes. Based on Craig's observation, I don't know that means
we have to include the -Mx- identifier in the builds though. I think it
would help us (dev) and users identify which milestone version of code is in
development and use, but it does have obvious maintenance implications. If
we do not publish official maven releases maybe Mx it isn't required - could
we add the Mx at the point when we do the milestone build?
Regarding a maven publish, is it possible to publish a release to the maven
repository, say an M1 release and not branch off or create a corresponding
M1 release in JIRA? It may be useful to publish milestone releases in maven
(for those who use maven), but not add the overhead of creating an svn
branch which we do not intend (and wouldn't make sense) to maintain.
-Jeremy
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:50 PM, Michael Dick <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Craig,
>
> I think it depends on how official we want to make the milestone releases.
> I
> was thinking of the milestones being "smaller" convenience releases, not
> "official" releases that get published to maven central. When we cut a
> milestone release we'd leave it in the SNAPSHOT repository so that folks
> can
> test a stable(ish) version. At the same time it wouldn't be an official
> release with all the overhead and additional work that implies (maintenance
> branch?).
>
> What do other people think?
>
> -mike
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@sun.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Hi Jeremy,
> >
> > I don't understand why the version needs to be changed from simply
> > 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT to 2.0.0-Mx-SNAPSHOT. Seems like we would be making
> trouble
> > for folks who want to use the release. Wouldn't we want to make the
> change
> > at the time we want to release, e.g. from 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT to 2.0.0-M2?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Craig
> >
> >
> > On Dec 4, 2008, at 8:11 AM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
> >
> > Three in favor, no oppose. Motion passes. :-)
> >> The build artifacts for each milestone will be named
> >> openjpa*-2.0.0-Mx-SNAPSHOT.jar, where x is the milestone number. I'll
> >> commit the pom updates for M1 shortly.
> >>
> >> -Jeremy
> >>
> >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:40 AM, Albert Lee <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> +1.
> >>>
> >>> Albert Lee.
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Jeremy Bauer <te...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> OpenJPA dev's,
> >>>> Now that we have a few iteration periods defined and are getting
> content
> >>>> into iteration 1, I think we should consider planning OpenJPA 2.0
> >>>>
> >>> milestone
> >>>
> >>>> releases. Based on a 3 (sometimes 4) week iteration schedule and the
> >>>>
> >>> fact
> >>>
> >>>> that it takes ~ a week to create and publish a release, how does a
> >>>> milestone
> >>>> release every other (ie. after each even numbered) iteration sound?
> If
> >>>>
> >>> we
> >>>
> >>>> discover that a milestone release every other iteration is not
> optimal,
> >>>>
> >>> we
> >>>
> >>>> can adjust as appropriate.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Jeremy
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Albert Lee.
> >>>
> >>>
> > Craig L Russell
> > Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
> > 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> > P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
> >
> >
>
Re: OpenJPA 2.0 milestone releases
Posted by Michael Dick <mi...@apache.org>.
Hi Craig,
I think it depends on how official we want to make the milestone releases. I
was thinking of the milestones being "smaller" convenience releases, not
"official" releases that get published to maven central. When we cut a
milestone release we'd leave it in the SNAPSHOT repository so that folks can
test a stable(ish) version. At the same time it wouldn't be an official
release with all the overhead and additional work that implies (maintenance
branch?).
What do other people think?
-mike
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com>wrote:
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> I don't understand why the version needs to be changed from simply
> 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT to 2.0.0-Mx-SNAPSHOT. Seems like we would be making trouble
> for folks who want to use the release. Wouldn't we want to make the change
> at the time we want to release, e.g. from 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT to 2.0.0-M2?
>
> Regards,
>
> Craig
>
>
> On Dec 4, 2008, at 8:11 AM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
>
> Three in favor, no oppose. Motion passes. :-)
>> The build artifacts for each milestone will be named
>> openjpa*-2.0.0-Mx-SNAPSHOT.jar, where x is the milestone number. I'll
>> commit the pom updates for M1 shortly.
>>
>> -Jeremy
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:40 AM, Albert Lee <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> +1.
>>>
>>> Albert Lee.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Jeremy Bauer <te...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> OpenJPA dev's,
>>>> Now that we have a few iteration periods defined and are getting content
>>>> into iteration 1, I think we should consider planning OpenJPA 2.0
>>>>
>>> milestone
>>>
>>>> releases. Based on a 3 (sometimes 4) week iteration schedule and the
>>>>
>>> fact
>>>
>>>> that it takes ~ a week to create and publish a release, how does a
>>>> milestone
>>>> release every other (ie. after each even numbered) iteration sound? If
>>>>
>>> we
>>>
>>>> discover that a milestone release every other iteration is not optimal,
>>>>
>>> we
>>>
>>>> can adjust as appropriate.
>>>>
>>>> -Jeremy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Albert Lee.
>>>
>>>
> Craig L Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>
Re: OpenJPA 2.0 milestone releases
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Jeremy,
I don't understand why the version needs to be changed from simply
2.0.0-SNAPSHOT to 2.0.0-Mx-SNAPSHOT. Seems like we would be making
trouble for folks who want to use the release. Wouldn't we want to
make the change at the time we want to release, e.g. from 2.0.0-
SNAPSHOT to 2.0.0-M2?
Regards,
Craig
On Dec 4, 2008, at 8:11 AM, Jeremy Bauer wrote:
> Three in favor, no oppose. Motion passes. :-)
> The build artifacts for each milestone will be named
> openjpa*-2.0.0-Mx-SNAPSHOT.jar, where x is the milestone number. I'll
> commit the pom updates for M1 shortly.
>
> -Jeremy
>
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:40 AM, Albert Lee <al...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> +1.
>>
>> Albert Lee.
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Jeremy Bauer <te...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> OpenJPA dev's,
>>> Now that we have a few iteration periods defined and are getting
>>> content
>>> into iteration 1, I think we should consider planning OpenJPA 2.0
>> milestone
>>> releases. Based on a 3 (sometimes 4) week iteration schedule and
>>> the
>> fact
>>> that it takes ~ a week to create and publish a release, how does a
>>> milestone
>>> release every other (ie. after each even numbered) iteration
>>> sound? If
>> we
>>> discover that a milestone release every other iteration is not
>>> optimal,
>> we
>>> can adjust as appropriate.
>>>
>>> -Jeremy
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Albert Lee.
>>
Craig L Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: OpenJPA 2.0 milestone releases
Posted by Jeremy Bauer <te...@gmail.com>.
Three in favor, no oppose. Motion passes. :-)
The build artifacts for each milestone will be named
openjpa*-2.0.0-Mx-SNAPSHOT.jar, where x is the milestone number. I'll
commit the pom updates for M1 shortly.
-Jeremy
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:40 AM, Albert Lee <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1.
>
> Albert Lee.
>
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Jeremy Bauer <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > OpenJPA dev's,
> > Now that we have a few iteration periods defined and are getting content
> > into iteration 1, I think we should consider planning OpenJPA 2.0
> milestone
> > releases. Based on a 3 (sometimes 4) week iteration schedule and the
> fact
> > that it takes ~ a week to create and publish a release, how does a
> > milestone
> > release every other (ie. after each even numbered) iteration sound? If
> we
> > discover that a milestone release every other iteration is not optimal,
> we
> > can adjust as appropriate.
> >
> > -Jeremy
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Albert Lee.
>
Re: OpenJPA 2.0 milestone releases
Posted by Albert Lee <al...@gmail.com>.
+1.
Albert Lee.
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Jeremy Bauer <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OpenJPA dev's,
> Now that we have a few iteration periods defined and are getting content
> into iteration 1, I think we should consider planning OpenJPA 2.0 milestone
> releases. Based on a 3 (sometimes 4) week iteration schedule and the fact
> that it takes ~ a week to create and publish a release, how does a
> milestone
> release every other (ie. after each even numbered) iteration sound? If we
> discover that a milestone release every other iteration is not optimal, we
> can adjust as appropriate.
>
> -Jeremy
>
--
Albert Lee.