Confused about the branches

[brettporter]

Hi,

I'm a bit confused about the current branch scenarios, we have 1.2 on  
a branch and 2.0 on trunk. Several changes have been made on each, and  
none merged to the other.

Can I suggest we merge all branch changes to trunk, rename trunk to  
1.2-SNAPSHOT, and the branch to continuum-1.1.x (1.1.1-SNAPSHOT) and  
use that for bugfixes only?

WDYT?

- Brett

--
Brett Porter
brett@...
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/

[Emmanuel Venisse-2]

why 1.1.x?

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:45 PM, Brett Porter <brett@...> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm a bit confused about the current branch scenarios, we have 1.2 on
> a branch and 2.0 on trunk. Several changes have been made on each, and
> none merged to the other.
>
> Can I suggest we merge all branch changes to trunk, rename trunk to
> 1.2-SNAPSHOT, and the branch to continuum-1.1.x (1.1.1-SNAPSHOT) and
> use that for bugfixes only?
>
> WDYT?
>
> - Brett
>
> --
> Brett Porter
> brett@...
> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>
>

[brettporter]

On 29/02/2008, at 9:52 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:

> why 1.1.x?

in case there was a bugfix release on 1.1? I thought that was what the  
branch was for... maintenance of 1.1.

or is there going to be 2 completely different strands of development?

- Brett

>
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:45 PM, Brett Porter <brett@...>  
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm a bit confused about the current branch scenarios, we have 1.2 on
>> a branch and 2.0 on trunk. Several changes have been made on each,  
>> and
>> none merged to the other.
>>
>> Can I suggest we merge all branch changes to trunk, rename trunk to
>> 1.2-SNAPSHOT, and the branch to continuum-1.1.x (1.1.1-SNAPSHOT) and
>> use that for bugfixes only?
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> - Brett
>>
>> --
>> Brett Porter
>> brett@...
>> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>>
>>

--
Brett Porter
brett@...
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/

[Emmanuel Venisse-2]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Brett Porter <brett@...> wrote:

>
> On 29/02/2008, at 9:52 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
>
> > why 1.1.x?
>
> in case there was a bugfix release on 1.1? I thought that was what the
> branch was for... maintenance of 1.1.
>
> or is there going to be 2 completely different strands of development?


I thought to do 1.x in the branch instead of only maintenance in
1.1.xbecause I don't know how many time we'll need  for the  first
2.0 release. User will probably need some new small feature before the
2.0release and not only maintenance.

>
>
> - Brett
>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:45 PM, Brett Porter <brett@...>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I'm a bit confused about the current branch scenarios, we have 1.2 on
> >> a branch and 2.0 on trunk. Several changes have been made on each,
> >> and
> >> none merged to the other.
> >>
> >> Can I suggest we merge all branch changes to trunk, rename trunk to
> >> 1.2-SNAPSHOT, and the branch to continuum-1.1.x (1.1.1-SNAPSHOT) and
> >> use that for bugfixes only?
> >>
> >> WDYT?
> >>
> >> - Brett
> >>
> >> --
> >> Brett Porter
> >> brett@...
> >> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
> >>
> >>
>
> --
> Brett Porter
> brett@...
> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>
>

[brettporter]

On 29/02/2008, at 10:04 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Brett Porter <brett@...>  
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 29/02/2008, at 9:52 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
>>
>>> why 1.1.x?
>>
>> in case there was a bugfix release on 1.1? I thought that was what  
>> the
>> branch was for... maintenance of 1.1.
>>
>> or is there going to be 2 completely different strands of  
>> development?
>
>
> I thought to do 1.x in the branch instead of only maintenance in
> 1.1.xbecause I don't know how many time we'll need  for the  first
> 2.0 release. User will probably need some new small feature before the
> 2.0release and not only maintenance.

With the roadmap discussion recently, I thought it was going to be an  
incremental move towards 2.0 on trunk - 1.2 will have some parts and  
refactorings, 1.3, 1.4 and so on. I'm not sure why there would need to  
be two streams of development? I think there's a real danger of  
getting lost in the 2.0 trap (c.f. Maven 1.0, Maven 2.0 and Maven 2.1 :)

I'm actually keen to do a couple of small things myself and get a  
release out:
- a few small bug fixes, like the lost change sets for some builds
- better error handling
- switch to a Jetty runtime without the plexus appserver so we can use  
jetty 6
- add a call to svn info --xml to check whether to do an svn update to  
speed up working copy updates

Just stuff I see from running vmbuild and the maven zone.

I think that and a couple of other refactorings that are being  
discussed on here would make a good 1.2 in the next couple of months.  
WDYT?

- Brett

--
Brett Porter
brett@...
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/

[Olivier Lamy]

Agree on this.
Currently there is a blocking issue with xml-rpc CONTINUUM-1590 which
prevent using xml-rpc :-(.

If no objections, I will change root pom to not have anymore maven pom
as parent.

 --
Olivier

2008/3/4, Brett Porter <brett@...>:

>
>  On 29/02/2008, at 10:04 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
>
>  > On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Brett Porter <brett@...>
>  > wrote:
>  >
>  >>
>  >> On 29/02/2008, at 9:52 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
>  >>
>  >>> why 1.1.x?
>  >>
>  >> in case there was a bugfix release on 1.1? I thought that was what
>  >> the
>  >> branch was for... maintenance of 1.1.
>  >>
>  >> or is there going to be 2 completely different strands of
>  >> development?
>  >
>  >
>  > I thought to do 1.x in the branch instead of only maintenance in
>  > 1.1.xbecause I don't know how many time we'll need  for the  first
>  > 2.0 release. User will probably need some new small feature before the
>  > 2.0release and not only maintenance.
>
>  With the roadmap discussion recently, I thought it was going to be an
>  incremental move towards 2.0 on trunk - 1.2 will have some parts and
>  refactorings, 1.3, 1.4 and so on. I'm not sure why there would need to
>  be two streams of development? I think there's a real danger of
>  getting lost in the 2.0 trap (c.f. Maven 1.0, Maven 2.0 and Maven 2.1 :)
>
>  I'm actually keen to do a couple of small things myself and get a
>  release out:
>  - a few small bug fixes, like the lost change sets for some builds
>  - better error handling
>  - switch to a Jetty runtime without the plexus appserver so we can use
>  jetty 6
>  - add a call to svn info --xml to check whether to do an svn update to
>  speed up working copy updates
>
>  Just stuff I see from running vmbuild and the maven zone.
>
>  I think that and a couple of other refactorings that are being
>  discussed on here would make a good 1.2 in the next couple of months.
>  WDYT?
>
>  - Brett
>
>
>  --
>  Brett Porter
>  brett@...
>  http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>
>

[brettporter]

On 04/03/2008, at 10:47 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:

> Agree on this.
> Currently there is a blocking issue with xml-rpc CONTINUUM-1590 which
> prevent using xml-rpc :-(.

Cool - shall we just start using the 1.2 bucket in JIRA? There are  
only 14 issues there now so maybe we could keep that to 20-30 issues  
all together and release it.

I found these changes on trunk that are not on the branch: r617400.  
(The rest is documentation)

I found these changes on the branch that are not on trunk: r627196,  
r620613, r620612, r620611

I think we should just merge all those from the branch to trunk, set  
it as v1.2, and close the branch for now?

> If no objections, I will change root pom to not have anymore maven pom
> as parent.

Sounds good - do you think we should have a Continuum parent POM like  
we do for Archiva?

Cheers,
Brett

--
Brett Porter
brett@...
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/

[rahul.thakur.xdev]

Brett Porter wrote:

>
> On 29/02/2008, at 10:04 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Brett Porter <brett@...> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 29/02/2008, at 9:52 AM, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
>>>
>>>> why 1.1.x?
>>>
>>> in case there was a bugfix release on 1.1? I thought that was what the
>>> branch was for... maintenance of 1.1.
>>>
>>> or is there going to be 2 completely different strands of development?
>>
>>
>> I thought to do 1.x in the branch instead of only maintenance in
>> 1.1.xbecause I don't know how many time we'll need for the first
>> 2.0 release. User will probably need some new small feature before the
>> 2.0release and not only maintenance.
>
> With the roadmap discussion recently, I thought it was going to be an
> incremental move towards 2.0 on trunk - 1.2 will have some parts and
> refactorings, 1.3, 1.4 and so on. I'm not sure why there would need to
> be two streams of development? I think there's a real danger of getting
> lost in the 2.0 trap (c.f. Maven 1.0, Maven 2.0 and Maven 2.1 :)

We haven't pegged any version numbers to the tasks extracted from the
roadmap discussion. I think we should consider what architecture rework
we intend to do (and impact), and if it merits keeping 2 streams (or not).

>
> I'm actually keen to do a couple of small things myself and get a
> release out:
> - a few small bug fixes, like the lost change sets for some builds
> - better error handling
> - switch to a Jetty runtime without the plexus appserver so we can use
> jetty 6
> - add a call to svn info --xml to check whether to do an svn update to
> speed up working copy updates
>

I agree on getting something out frequently. Having said that if there
is a consensus on 2 streams then I think we need to keep the momentum up
on both to get releases/milestones out there.

> Just stuff I see from running vmbuild and the maven zone.
>
> I think that and a couple of other refactorings that are being discussed
> on here would make a good 1.2 in the next couple of months. WDYT?
>
> - Brett
>
> --
> Brett Porter
> brett@...
> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>
>

Cheers,
Rahul

[Olivier Lamy]

2008/3/4, Brett Porter <brett@...>:

>
>  On 04/03/2008, at 10:47 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
>
>  > Agree on this.
>  > Currently there is a blocking issue with xml-rpc CONTINUUM-1590 which
>  > prevent using xml-rpc :-(.
>
>
> Cool - shall we just start using the 1.2 bucket in JIRA? There are
>  only 14 issues there now so maybe we could keep that to 20-30 issues
>  all together and release it.

+1

>
>  I found these changes on trunk that are not on the branch: r617400.
>  (The rest is documentation)
>
>  I found these changes on the branch that are not on trunk: r627196,
>  r620613, r620612, r620611
>
>  I think we should just merge all those from the branch to trunk, set
>  it as v1.2, and close the branch for now?

+1. (Perso, I don't really like the idea of starting a parrallel
branch/trunk "a la" mvn 2.1 :-) )

>
>
>  > If no objections, I will change root pom to not have anymore maven pom
>  > as parent.
>
>
> Sounds good - do you think we should have a Continuum parent POM like
>  we do for Archiva?

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/continuum/parent/trunk ?
A new pom without parent ? (I can certainly copy some contents from
the maven parent pom)

Question : do we have to change the groupId in the poms :
org.apache.maven.continuum -> org.apache.continuum ( java package too
? looks a big bang)

>
>  Cheers,
>
> Brett
>
>  --
>  Brett Porter
>  brett@...
>  http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>
>

[brettporter]

On 05/03/2008, at 5:18 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:

> 2008/3/4, Brett Porter <brett@...>:
>>
>> On 04/03/2008, at 10:47 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
>>
>>> Agree on this.
>>> Currently there is a blocking issue with xml-rpc CONTINUUM-1590  
>>> which
>>> prevent using xml-rpc :-(.
>>
>>
>> Cool - shall we just start using the 1.2 bucket in JIRA? There are
>> only 14 issues there now so maybe we could keep that to 20-30 issues
>> all together and release it.
>
> +1

ok, I'll get my stuff in there

>
>
>>
>> I found these changes on trunk that are not on the branch: r617400.
>> (The rest is documentation)
>>
>> I found these changes on the branch that are not on trunk: r627196,
>> r620613, r620612, r620611
>>
>> I think we should just merge all those from the branch to trunk, set
>> it as v1.2, and close the branch for now?
>
> +1. (Perso, I don't really like the idea of starting a parrallel
> branch/trunk "a la" mvn 2.1 :-) )

I'll merge the changes to trunk - but will wait to hear other's  
opinions on this too before changing the branch

>
>
>>
>>
>>> If no objections, I will change root pom to not have anymore maven  
>>> pom
>>> as parent.
>>
>>
>> Sounds good - do you think we should have a Continuum parent POM like
>> we do for Archiva?
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/continuum/parent/trunk ?
> A new pom without parent ? (I can certainly copy some contents from
> the maven parent pom)

With an ASF parent instead of the Maven one, yep.

>
>
> Question : do we have to change the groupId in the poms :
> org.apache.maven.continuum -> org.apache.continuum ( java package too
> ? looks a big bang)

I don't see any downside to doing this :)

- Brett

--
Brett Porter
brett@...
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/

[Olivier Lamy]

2008/3/4, Brett Porter <brett@...>:

>
>  On 05/03/2008, at 5:18 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
>
>  > 2008/3/4, Brett Porter <brett@...>:
>  >>
>  >> On 04/03/2008, at 10:47 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
>  >>
>  >>> Agree on this.
>  >>> Currently there is a blocking issue with xml-rpc CONTINUUM-1590
>  >>> which
>  >>> prevent using xml-rpc :-(.
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> Cool - shall we just start using the 1.2 bucket in JIRA? There are
>  >> only 14 issues there now so maybe we could keep that to 20-30 issues
>  >> all together and release it.
>  >
>  > +1
>
>
> ok, I'll get my stuff in there
>
>
>  >
>  >
>  >>
>  >> I found these changes on trunk that are not on the branch: r617400.
>  >> (The rest is documentation)
>  >>
>  >> I found these changes on the branch that are not on trunk: r627196,
>  >> r620613, r620612, r620611
>  >>
>  >> I think we should just merge all those from the branch to trunk, set
>  >> it as v1.2, and close the branch for now?
>  >
>  > +1. (Perso, I don't really like the idea of starting a parrallel
>  > branch/trunk "a la" mvn 2.1 :-) )
>
>
> I'll merge the changes to trunk - but will wait to hear other's
>  opinions on this too before changing the branch

It looks we don't have any objections/opinions.
All changes from branch has been merged.
I will rename the version in the trunk to 1.2 (tomorow).

>
>
>  >
>  >
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>> If no objections, I will change root pom to not have anymore maven
>  >>> pom
>  >>> as parent.
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> Sounds good - do you think we should have a Continuum parent POM like
>  >> we do for Archiva?
>  >
>  > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/continuum/parent/trunk ?
>  > A new pom without parent ? (I can certainly copy some contents from
>  > the maven parent pom)
>
>
> With an ASF parent instead of the Maven one, yep.
>
>
>  >
>  >
>  > Question : do we have to change the groupId in the poms :
>  > org.apache.maven.continuum -> org.apache.continuum ( java package too
>  > ? looks a big bang)
>
>
> I don't see any downside to doing this :)
>
>
>  - Brett
>
>
>  --
>  Brett Porter
>  brett@...
>  http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>
>

[rahul.thakur.xdev]

There are some other branches residing in Continuum SVN. Should we
remove any (or all) of the following if they are not in active
development? I know (id-refactor and key-based-refactor can go)

# continuum-acegi
# continuum-site_1.1
# gbuild
# id-refactor
# key-based-refactor
# osworkflow-integration
# release-integration

Cheers,
Rahul


Brett Porter wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm a bit confused about the current branch scenarios, we have 1.2 on a
> branch and 2.0 on trunk. Several changes have been made on each, and
> none merged to the other.
>
> Can I suggest we merge all branch changes to trunk, rename trunk to
> 1.2-SNAPSHOT, and the branch to continuum-1.1.x (1.1.1-SNAPSHOT) and use
> that for bugfixes only?
>
> WDYT?
>
> - Brett
>
> --
> Brett Porter
> brett@...
> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>
>

[Olivier Lamy]

IMHO, we can remove.

2008/3/10, Rahul Thakur <rahul.thakur.xdev@...>:

>
>  There are some other branches residing in Continuum SVN. Should we
>  remove any (or all) of the following if they are not in active
>  development? I know (id-refactor and key-based-refactor can go)
>
>  # continuum-acegi
>  # continuum-site_1.1
>  # gbuild
>  # id-refactor
>  # key-based-refactor
>  # osworkflow-integration
>  # release-integration
>
>  Cheers,
>  Rahul
>
>
>  Brett Porter wrote:
>  > Hi,
>  >
>  > I'm a bit confused about the current branch scenarios, we have 1.2 on a
>  > branch and 2.0 on trunk. Several changes have been made on each, and
>  > none merged to the other.
>  >
>  > Can I suggest we merge all branch changes to trunk, rename trunk to
>  > 1.2-SNAPSHOT, and the branch to continuum-1.1.x (1.1.1-SNAPSHOT) and use
>  > that for bugfixes only?
>  >
>  > WDYT?
>
> >
>  > - Brett
>  >
>  > --
>  > Brett Porter
>  > brett@...
>  > http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>  >
>  >
>

[rahul.thakur.xdev]

The branches have been removed except for 'continuum-site_1.1' which had
some updates a few months ago. If this is not required please feel free
to remove.

Rahul


Olivier Lamy wrote:

> IMHO, we can remove.
>
> 2008/3/10, Rahul Thakur<rahul.thakur.xdev@...>:
>>   There are some other branches residing in Continuum SVN. Should we
>>   remove any (or all) of the following if they are not in active
>>   development? I know (id-refactor and key-based-refactor can go)
>>
>>   # continuum-acegi
>>   # continuum-site_1.1
>>   # gbuild
>>   # id-refactor
>>   # key-based-refactor
>>   # osworkflow-integration
>>   # release-integration
>>
>>   Cheers,
>>   Rahul
>>
>>
>>   Brett Porter wrote:
>>   >  Hi,
>>   >
>>   >  I'm a bit confused about the current branch scenarios, we have 1.2 on a
>>   >  branch and 2.0 on trunk. Several changes have been made on each, and
>>   >  none merged to the other.
>>   >
>>   >  Can I suggest we merge all branch changes to trunk, rename trunk to
>>   >  1.2-SNAPSHOT, and the branch to continuum-1.1.x (1.1.1-SNAPSHOT) and use
>>   >  that for bugfixes only?
>>   >
>>   >  WDYT?
>>
>>   >  - Brett
>>   >
>>   >  --
>>   >  Brett Porter
>>   >  brett@...
>>   >  http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>>   >
>>   >
>>
>

[Wendy Smoak-3]

On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Olivier Lamy <olamy@...> wrote:

>  It looks we don't have any objections/opinions.
>  All changes from branch has been merged.
>  I will rename the version in the trunk to 1.2 (tomorow).

...and delete the continuum-1.x branch?

--
Wendy