-Re: [DISCUSS] release branching scheme under maven was [VOTE] 0.23.3 release
I forked the thread, because it is not really about the release vote any
more, although we both seem to be on the same page so this may be overkill
On 9/10/12 3:50 PM, "Owen O'Malley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Robert Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Thanks for the info Owen I was not aware of that, I can see at the
>> beginning of the twiki
>> http://wiki.apache.org/hadoop/HowToReleasePostMavenization that it is
>> of implied by the skip this section comment. But, I was just confused
>> because to do an official release I need to change the version number in
>> several different places, and I didn¹t think that is was all that kosher
>> to do that directly in the tags area.
>Please don't make edits in the tags area.
Totally concur on that.
>> It also seems to be a bit different
>> then what is happening on branch-2.
>Branch 2 also has issues, which we've also been ironing out. The
>branch-2.0.1-alpha and branch-2.0.2-alpha will be deleted soon.
>> I was planning on deleting the branch once the vote for 0.23.3 finished,
>That would be fine.
>> but I can delete it now if you would prefer and the roll back the
>> numbers on branch-0.23 to be 0.23.3? Or would it be 0.23.3-SNAPSHOT
>You can wait for 0.23.3 to clean up. The only odd part of that is that
>the 0.23.3 tag won't be on the branch-0.23.
Yes that is ugly. I agree.
>With Ant, we could just override the version on the command line.
>Clearly Maven is a little pickier. You could:
>1. Set the version to 0.23.3
>2. Check in
>3. Make the tag
>4. Set the version to 0.23.4-SNAPSHOT
>5. Check in
>I'd also be ok with just waiting with 4+5 until the vote passes.
>Thoughts? (Of course as discussed this would be more about 0.23.4 :) )
I am fine with either way. If we do go all they way to 5 and there are
blockers that force a re-spin of the RC then we are back to creating a new
branch off of the original tag to make changes and we get a tag that is
not off of branch-X.Y. But, if we don't go all the way to 5 then the
branch must stay locked for a week, which is not the end of the world, but
in some cases will slow down development a little. It is a balancing
game, but I don't see major drawbacks to either situation.
>> I also want to be sure that we want to not allow anyone to check
>> in for a week+ on branch-0.23. There are a few things I know of that
>> almost ready but are not Blockers.
>Sure. That makes sense.