Forum OpenACS Development: 5.0 branched from HEAD

Request notifications

Collapse
Posted by Joel Aufrecht on
We branched the CVS tree today, creating an oacs-5-0 branch and a dotlrn-2-0 branch. It went smoothly except for wps-portlet, which already had a dotlrn-2-0 tag (not a branch, a tag). We overrode that tag using "cvs tag -F -b dotlrn-2-0" in that directory.

This means: first, the feature freeze on HEAD is lifted. Commit away. Of course, if we don't want to throw away all of our work in stabilizing HEAD, now is a really good time to add more automated testing.

Second: Code checkins to the branch will be scrutinized fairly closely and may be rolled back if they break things.

Third: If you check in bug fixes to oacs-5-0, be sure to also check them in to HEAD.

Fourth: All future 5.0.x work, including future beta and release candidates and tarballs, will come from the oacs-5-0 branch.

Fifth: Open issues: We plan to merge oacs-5-0 changes back to head either at each beta release or at each dot release (5.0.0, 5.0.1, etc), depending on what works best.

Collapse
2: Re: 5.0 branched from HEAD (response to 1)
Posted by Jeff Davis on
Joel, what time did you branch? I was fixing bugs this morning and don't know if my changes made it in.

In the future we should probably announce a day or two early if we are planning to branch so people have a chance to commit work prior to the branch.

Collapse
3: Re: 5.0 branched from HEAD (response to 2)
Posted by Joel Aufrecht on
I branched around 1 pm UTC on 13 Nov.  What is the appropriate forum for announcing branching?
Collapse
4: Re: 5.0 branched from HEAD (response to 3)
Posted by Jeff Davis on
Probably here with a couple days notice (and maybe we should set up a way to spam committers).
Collapse
5: Re: 5.0 branched from HEAD (response to 1)
Posted by Dave Bauer on
To update an existing checkout from HEAD to the oacs-5-0 branch use:

cvs update -A -r oacs-5-0

Collapse
6: Re: 5.0 branched from HEAD (response to 1)
Posted by Andrew Piskorski on
Third: If you check in bug fixes to oacs-5-0, be sure to also check them in to HEAD.

Fifth: Open issues: We plan to merge oacs-5-0 changes back to head either at each beta release or at each dot release (5.0.0, 5.0.1, etc), depending on what works best.

Those two directives are mutually contradictory! I suggest that no one ever commit the same change to both the oacs-5-0 branch and the Head. Commit a fix on oacs-5-0, then merge batches of such fixes back to the Head in some regular and agreed upon process.
Collapse
7: Re: 5.0 branched from HEAD (response to 6)
Posted by Joel Aufrecht on
Can I get a permit to merge 5.0 doc work back to HEAD at will?
Collapse
8: Re: 5.0 branched from HEAD (response to 7)
Posted by Jeff Davis on
Sure (you might want to think about a tagging strategy so you know whats been merged each way before you start going back and forth though). Also, I committed a bunch of stuff on oacs-5-0 so before you start changing head you might want to merge that over.

Generally it's a *lot* easier to work in one place and just merge forward (i.e. do everything on 5.0 and merge to head). Any time you merge forward you should tag what was merged). Maybe we should have oacs-5-merged-to-head and oasc-5-pending-to-head or something like that for such things. and then the merge process would be

cvs update -j oacs-5-merged-to-head -j oacs-5-pending-to-head foo
and when the merge was committed you would roll oacs-5-merged-to-head forward to the oacs-5-pending-to-head tag.