You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@roller.apache.org by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> on 2005/10/21 01:27:26 UTC
1.3 + STATUS page
On 10/16/05, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/16/05, Dave Johnson <da...@rollerweblogger.org> wrote:
> > Trunk is still 1.3
> >
> > Roller 2.0 is still in the roller_2.0 branch
> >
> > I'd like to make the 1.3 release next week, since we've already voted
> > on it.
How are you planning to go about the release? I've done a fair few ASF
releases, so might be able to see some nitpicking to help you on.
Mirrors jump to mind. I assume we'll create a tags/ directory to tag
the releases.
Do you guys favour the release candidate approach, or the release it
and move on approach?
> > Just as soon as I've got a basic project web page up on the
> > incubator site.
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/roller.html
Still needs normalizing to get all of the STATUS.txt list into the
right places (I inlined the old file lower down in the page).
I set the project start date as 2005-06-20 on
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/index.html as a rough guess based
on Dave's blog. Mail lists were setup then or something like that.
Probably not actually the page you mean; that's just the official
STATUS file that Noel asked for instead of a page where we can link
downloads etc.
Hen
Re: Ready to branch 1.3? (was Re: 1.3 + STATUS page)
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
On 10/20/05, Dave Johnson <da...@rollerweblogger.org> wrote:
> Here's what I'd like to do tomorrow (that's Friday):
> - Merge from roller_trunk to roller_2.0 to get Allen and Henri's changes
I was applying mine to both sides I believe.
> - Create branches/roller_1.3 and create release files from that
svn move trunk branches/roller_1.3
> - Move branches/roller_2.0 to roller_trunk
svn move branches/roller_2.0 trunk
I assume that's what you meant, but wanted to make sure for the create
statement.
> We've discussed the above before, so I don't believe we need a vote.
>
> Does anybody object to doing this now?
Nope, sounds like a good time for the swap.
> Regarding the release file: I was planning on releasing on Java.Net,
> but I'd prefer to use ASF infrastructure if possible -- so Henri,
> please advise.
If we want to do Java.Net, we'll need to make sure we get the okay
from Noel/Incubator PMC so they don't feel blindsided. I think their
preference is to use ASF infrastructure too, so simplest is to drive
on and find out if we can use ASF infra.
Obvious issues:
1) Have we announced the results of the vote to the general incubator
list? (or the PMC). This helps awareness filter up of what's going on.
2) LGPL issues. Need to make sure they're happy with this; I'm not
sure why the LGPL stuff wasn't resolved a the last board meeting (Sam?
Noel?).
3) I'm guessing we need to get a Roller page up to list the download
and other bits, as opposed to a Roller status page.
Hen
Re: Ready to branch 1.3? (was Re: 1.3 + STATUS page)
Posted by Allen Gilliland <Al...@Sun.COM>.
On Fri, 2005-10-21 at 11:53, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On 10/21/05, Dave Johnson <da...@rollerweblogger.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Oct 21, 2005, at 12:34 PM, Allen Gilliland wrote:
> > > branches/roller-1.x (any continued development against 1.x happens
> > > here)
> > > trunk (current development branch representing 2.x)
> > > tags/roller-1.3 (snapshot for the 1.3 release)
> > >
> > > ... then after the 2.0 release ...
> > >
> > > tags/roller-2.0
> > >
> > > etc,etc.
> > >
> > > the idea being that we keep the number of development branches limited
> > > to just 1 branch per major version number, but we can still keep a
> > > record of each release using the tags dir. does that make sense? or
> > > is that convoluted?
> >
> > +1
>
> +1 here. 1 branch per major version sounds good.
>
> Am assuming that we would treat the tags/* as read-only and open
> branches up when we want to make changes.
yeah, the tags/* would be read-only.
-- Allen
>
> I really miss the concept of tags in CVS; faking them in SVN always
> feels so empty.
>
> Hen
Re: Ready to branch 1.3? (was Re: 1.3 + STATUS page)
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
On 10/21/05, Dave Johnson <da...@rollerweblogger.org> wrote:
>
> On Oct 21, 2005, at 12:34 PM, Allen Gilliland wrote:
> > branches/roller-1.x (any continued development against 1.x happens
> > here)
> > trunk (current development branch representing 2.x)
> > tags/roller-1.3 (snapshot for the 1.3 release)
> >
> > ... then after the 2.0 release ...
> >
> > tags/roller-2.0
> >
> > etc,etc.
> >
> > the idea being that we keep the number of development branches limited
> > to just 1 branch per major version number, but we can still keep a
> > record of each release using the tags dir. does that make sense? or
> > is that convoluted?
>
> +1
+1 here. 1 branch per major version sounds good.
Am assuming that we would treat the tags/* as read-only and open
branches up when we want to make changes.
I really miss the concept of tags in CVS; faking them in SVN always
feels so empty.
Hen
Re: Ready to branch 1.3? (was Re: 1.3 + STATUS page)
Posted by Dave Johnson <da...@rollerweblogger.org>.
On Oct 21, 2005, at 12:34 PM, Allen Gilliland wrote:
> branches/roller-1.x (any continued development against 1.x happens
> here)
> trunk (current development branch representing 2.x)
> tags/roller-1.3 (snapshot for the 1.3 release)
>
> ... then after the 2.0 release ...
>
> tags/roller-2.0
>
> etc,etc.
>
> the idea being that we keep the number of development branches limited
> to just 1 branch per major version number, but we can still keep a
> record of each release using the tags dir. does that make sense? or
> is that convoluted?
+1
Makes perfect sense to me - Dave
Re: Ready to branch 1.3? (was Re: 1.3 + STATUS page)
Posted by Allen Gilliland <Al...@Sun.COM>.
On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 19:17, Dave Johnson wrote:
> Thanks for setting up the roller page Henri, that's a good starting
> point. I spent a hour or so staring at Forrest docs last week and got
> nowhere :-(
>
> Here's what I'd like to do tomorrow (that's Friday):
> - Merge from roller_trunk to roller_2.0 to get Allen and Henri's changes
> - Create branches/roller_1.3 and create release files from that
> - Move branches/roller_2.0 to roller_trunk
I have one comment here.
Based on our last discussions it seemed more appropriate to name the new branch "branches/roller_1.x" because it represents any continued development in the 1.x series of Roller.
If we want to capture a snapshot of just what is going into a specific release then I suggest we do like Henri mentioned in a previous email and create a tags/ directory which can be just the files that make up a specific release.
So that would mean we would have this ...
branches/roller-1.x (any continued development against 1.x happens here)
trunk (current development branch representing 2.x)
tags/roller-1.3 (snapshot for the 1.3 release)
... then after the 2.0 release ...
tags/roller-2.0
etc,etc.
the idea being that we keep the number of development branches limited to just 1 branch per major version number, but we can still keep a record of each release using the tags dir. does that make sense? or is that convoluted?
-- Allen
>
> We've discussed the above before, so I don't believe we need a vote.
>
> Does anybody object to doing this now?
>
> Regarding the release file: I was planning on releasing on Java.Net,
> but I'd prefer to use ASF infrastructure if possible -- so Henri,
> please advise.
>
> - Dave
>
>
> On Oct 20, 2005, at 7:40 PM, Allen Gilliland wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 16:27, Henri Yandell wrote:
> >> On 10/16/05, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On 10/16/05, Dave Johnson <da...@rollerweblogger.org> wrote:
> >>>> Trunk is still 1.3
> >>>>
> >>>> Roller 2.0 is still in the roller_2.0 branch
> >>>>
> >>>> I'd like to make the 1.3 release next week, since we've already
> >>>> voted
> >>>> on it.
> >>
> >> How are you planning to go about the release? I've done a fair few ASF
> >> releases, so might be able to see some nitpicking to help you on.
> >> Mirrors jump to mind. I assume we'll create a tags/ directory to tag
> >> the releases.
> >>
> >> Do you guys favour the release candidate approach, or the release it
> >> and move on approach?
> >
> > release it and move on.
> >
> > -- Allen
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>> Just as soon as I've got a basic project web page up on the
> >>>> incubator site.
> >>
> >> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/roller.html
> >>
> >> Still needs normalizing to get all of the STATUS.txt list into the
> >> right places (I inlined the old file lower down in the page).
> >>
> >> I set the project start date as 2005-06-20 on
> >> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/index.html as a rough guess based
> >> on Dave's blog. Mail lists were setup then or something like that.
> >>
> >> Probably not actually the page you mean; that's just the official
> >> STATUS file that Noel asked for instead of a page where we can link
> >> downloads etc.
> >>
> >> Hen
> >
>
Re: Ready to branch 1.3? (was Re: 1.3 + STATUS page)
Posted by Anil Gangolli <an...@busybuddha.org>.
Dave Johnson wrote:
> Thanks for setting up the roller page Henri, that's a good starting
> point. I spent a hour or so staring at Forrest docs last week and got
> nowhere :-(
>
> Here's what I'd like to do tomorrow (that's Friday):
> - Merge from roller_trunk to roller_2.0 to get Allen and Henri's changes
And mine, depending on when the last time you merged from trunk to
roller 2.0, you may or may not have them.
> - Create branches/roller_1.3 and create release files from that
> - Move branches/roller_2.0 to roller_trunk
>
> We've discussed the above before, so I don't believe we need a vote.
>
> Does anybody object to doing this now?
No objection here.
>
> Regarding the release file: I was planning on releasing on Java.Net,
> but I'd prefer to use ASF infrastructure if possible -- so Henri,
> please advise.
>
> - Dave
>
>
> On Oct 20, 2005, at 7:40 PM, Allen Gilliland wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 16:27, Henri Yandell wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/16/05, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/16/05, Dave Johnson <da...@rollerweblogger.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Trunk is still 1.3
>>>>>
>>>>> Roller 2.0 is still in the roller_2.0 branch
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to make the 1.3 release next week, since we've already voted
>>>>> on it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> How are you planning to go about the release? I've done a fair few ASF
>>> releases, so might be able to see some nitpicking to help you on.
>>> Mirrors jump to mind. I assume we'll create a tags/ directory to tag
>>> the releases.
>>>
>>> Do you guys favour the release candidate approach, or the release it
>>> and move on approach?
>>
>>
>> release it and move on.
>>
>> -- Allen
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>> Just as soon as I've got a basic project web page up on the
>>>>> incubator site.
>>>>
>>>
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/roller.html
>>>
>>> Still needs normalizing to get all of the STATUS.txt list into the
>>> right places (I inlined the old file lower down in the page).
>>>
>>> I set the project start date as 2005-06-20 on
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/index.html as a rough guess based
>>> on Dave's blog. Mail lists were setup then or something like that.
>>>
>>> Probably not actually the page you mean; that's just the official
>>> STATUS file that Noel asked for instead of a page where we can link
>>> downloads etc.
>>>
>>> Hen
>>
>>
>
>
Ready to branch 1.3? (was Re: 1.3 + STATUS page)
Posted by Dave Johnson <da...@rollerweblogger.org>.
Thanks for setting up the roller page Henri, that's a good starting
point. I spent a hour or so staring at Forrest docs last week and got
nowhere :-(
Here's what I'd like to do tomorrow (that's Friday):
- Merge from roller_trunk to roller_2.0 to get Allen and Henri's changes
- Create branches/roller_1.3 and create release files from that
- Move branches/roller_2.0 to roller_trunk
We've discussed the above before, so I don't believe we need a vote.
Does anybody object to doing this now?
Regarding the release file: I was planning on releasing on Java.Net,
but I'd prefer to use ASF infrastructure if possible -- so Henri,
please advise.
- Dave
On Oct 20, 2005, at 7:40 PM, Allen Gilliland wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 16:27, Henri Yandell wrote:
>> On 10/16/05, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/16/05, Dave Johnson <da...@rollerweblogger.org> wrote:
>>>> Trunk is still 1.3
>>>>
>>>> Roller 2.0 is still in the roller_2.0 branch
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to make the 1.3 release next week, since we've already
>>>> voted
>>>> on it.
>>
>> How are you planning to go about the release? I've done a fair few ASF
>> releases, so might be able to see some nitpicking to help you on.
>> Mirrors jump to mind. I assume we'll create a tags/ directory to tag
>> the releases.
>>
>> Do you guys favour the release candidate approach, or the release it
>> and move on approach?
>
> release it and move on.
>
> -- Allen
>
>
>>
>>>> Just as soon as I've got a basic project web page up on the
>>>> incubator site.
>>
>> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/roller.html
>>
>> Still needs normalizing to get all of the STATUS.txt list into the
>> right places (I inlined the old file lower down in the page).
>>
>> I set the project start date as 2005-06-20 on
>> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/index.html as a rough guess based
>> on Dave's blog. Mail lists were setup then or something like that.
>>
>> Probably not actually the page you mean; that's just the official
>> STATUS file that Noel asked for instead of a page where we can link
>> downloads etc.
>>
>> Hen
>
Re: 1.3 + STATUS page
Posted by Allen Gilliland <Al...@Sun.COM>.
On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 16:27, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On 10/16/05, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/16/05, Dave Johnson <da...@rollerweblogger.org> wrote:
> > > Trunk is still 1.3
> > >
> > > Roller 2.0 is still in the roller_2.0 branch
> > >
> > > I'd like to make the 1.3 release next week, since we've already voted
> > > on it.
>
> How are you planning to go about the release? I've done a fair few ASF
> releases, so might be able to see some nitpicking to help you on.
> Mirrors jump to mind. I assume we'll create a tags/ directory to tag
> the releases.
>
> Do you guys favour the release candidate approach, or the release it
> and move on approach?
release it and move on.
-- Allen
>
> > > Just as soon as I've got a basic project web page up on the
> > > incubator site.
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/roller.html
>
> Still needs normalizing to get all of the STATUS.txt list into the
> right places (I inlined the old file lower down in the page).
>
> I set the project start date as 2005-06-20 on
> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/index.html as a rough guess based
> on Dave's blog. Mail lists were setup then or something like that.
>
> Probably not actually the page you mean; that's just the official
> STATUS file that Noel asked for instead of a page where we can link
> downloads etc.
>
> Hen