Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
RE: [wtp-dev] Reminder to use "R1_5_maintenance" for maintenance branchname

I’ll second the opinion that it’s confusing when you know that a patch has been approved for the maintenance stream and released, but there is no branch for the plugin.  I understand that it’s a bit more hassle to have to put the same patch in both streams, but I think creating the branch on first change makes things clearer.


Thanks, Ted


From: wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wtp-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David M Williams
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 12:53 PM
To: wtp-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [wtp-dev] Reminder to use "R1_5_maintenance" for maintenance branchname


A few have asked me, so wanted to repeat,

if anyone gets completely done with 1.5, and wants to put 1.5.1 fixes in cvs, please branch your code using a WTP common name, namely


the releng projects will be so branched after 1.5, when 1.5.1 builds start.

Last time, a few projects used slightly different names, and that was a little confusing.

Please remember that plugin version numbers need to be updated (using the +100 rule) with the first change (and only first change) for a maintenance release.

Turns, out, as I was chatting with some developers as I wrote this note, there's two trains of thought about when to literally branch the code in cvs.

Some think it should be done when code is first intended for 1.5.1, even if the same fix is going in 2.0.

Others think it should be done only when there is a known difference between code intended for 1.5.1 and 2.0.

We did it this later way last time, well, actually we left it up to each team to decide, so some did it one way, others another, but, in my experience (and others from
community commented to me) it was very hard to load up "the most recent code intended for 1.5.1" since everyone had a different system. Simply "loading map projects"
only gives you a version of code, and not necessarily the right branch of code --- so, again, took a lot of extra work for someone to load up correct version to propose a
patch ... they pretty much would have to ask the component lead what to load.

Hence, I'll ask around, think though, and write up some more specific details and proposals in "a how to do", and see if there is any community thoughts on the matter.
I don't want to add "more work" to anyone ... neither the committers nor the community, so hope there's a solution that's easy for everyone.

Still, if you do branch your code ... the purpose of this note ... please use a common name R1_5_maintenance.


Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and  affiliated
entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted  and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.

Back to the top