[Building Sakai] 2.6.x pom <version> after 2.6.0 release
Stephen Swinsburg
s.swinsburg at lancaster.ac.uk
Fri Mar 27 02:08:25 PDT 2009
A minor comment on the branch version being out of date, bear in mind
the branch DOES stay the same, theoretically identical. No API
changes, UI changes or tool behaviours should change, unless they are
bugfixes. So the constant version of the branch is still valid as it
really is only one version, just with bugfixes.
That being said, if the version in contrib projects can be set to an
official release with the appropriate maven repo definition setup,
like you said David, then this whole problem could go away. This is
where we need some "Guidelines for Contrib projects" perhaps.
regards,
Steve
On 27/03/2009, at 8:24 AM, David Horwitz wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> A couple of thoughts - I'm generally against the idea of the branch
> version staying the same for the lifetime of the branch - it leads
> to the version becoming devalued and introduces increasing
> uncertainty about what version of a dependency your project may
> actually be using. We need to remember that by the standards of
> open source project our release cycles are long (years), and that
> we're using the same version number to describe a wide range of code
> of varying maturity and stability.
>
> On the issue that Seth mentioned about maintaining contrib projects
> - there is no reason for 99.9% of contrib projects to bind their
> versions to a non-release Sakai version. If you set your Sakai
> version to a release (e.g. 2.5.3) and add the definition of the
> Sakai maven repo to your projects base pom - it will build and run
> for any 2.5.* version (and probably all 2.6 versions too)
>
> David
>
> Stephen Swinsburg wrote:
>>
>>
>> I really do feel that the maintenance releases should have a stable
>> <version> number associated with them, which does not change over
>> time as tags are released. So like 2.6-SNAPSHOT or just 2.6.x. But
>> not 2.6.1-SNAPSHOT as that would later change to 2.6.2-SNAPSHOT,
>> then to 2.6.3-SNAPSHOT and so on.
>>
>> Other projects (eg Apache Wicket) use a branch <version> similar to
>> this. Tagged releases are like 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 1.3.5, just like us,
>> and there is one 1.3.x branch with it's version at 1.3-SNAPSHOT.
>> This branch version is stable and as fixes go into the branch, a
>> new version is tagged, 1.3.6, but the branch remains at 1.3-
>> SNAPSHOT as it's still the same singular 1.3 branch. Trunk is the
>> only moving version which would be at 1.4-SNAPSHOT in this example.
>>
>> If we have a changing branch <version>, it's going to mean a lot
>> more manual intervention in removing deployed artifacts from the
>> previous 'branch' (ie as it changes from 2.6.1-SNAPSHOT to 2.6.2-
>> SNAPSHOT). So you couldn't just do an svn update in a branch, build
>> and be on your way as the version might have changed. One of the
>> main requirements behind the current maintenance branches is that
>> they remain very stable.
>>
>> There is currently no undeploy goal in our build process like there
>> was in 2.4.x which would clean up an old version. Perhaps we need
>> to look at this again (http://bugs.sakaiproject.org/jira/browse/SAK-13280
>> ).
>>
>> Also, when did we shift to suggesting people use point releases
>> rather than the maintenance branch in production?
>>
>>
>> regards,
>> Steve
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Anthony Whyte <arwhyte at umich.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Opening this conversation up to the dev list for further comments:
>>>>
>>>> Steve--well, in a world were we could use the Maven release plugin
>>>> with the whole of Sakai (which does not exist at present;
>>>> although I
>>>> think we can sort out the problem with some project/pom naming
>>>> realignments) we could perform releases from the 2.6.x branch as we
>>>> do now from K1. In such a case the release plugin would generate a
>>>> 2.6.0 tag and then the plugin would increment the pom <version>
>>>> number of the 2.6.x branch to 2.6.1-SNAPSHOT and commit the changes
>>>> automatically. Then 2.6.0 artifacts are created and placed in the
>>>> repo. This is how K1 <versioning> works and I expect Ian intends
>>>> for
>>>> K2 to work the same way. All of this you know so I apologize here
>>>> for stating the obvious.
>>>>
>>>> The point I am trying to make above is that the maintenance branch
>>>> should be viewed as a SNAPSHOT set of code that by definition is
>>>> rather more fluid in nature than a point release (using M2 as a
>>>> fixed
>>>> version number as you recommend obscures this). Indeed, it is no
>>>> longer the case that we (the Foundation) actively advise people to
>>>> run their production instances off a maintenance branch. Our goal
>>>> has been to undercut the old adage that friends don't let friends
>>>> run
>>>> Sakai point releases in production by producing reliable
>>>> maintenance
>>>> releases that are produced regularly to a well understood timeline
>>>> (the latter still a goal). We have had a modicum of success here
>>>> with the 2.5 maintenance series as I see now that a fair number of
>>>> schools are running 2.5.2, 2.5.3 and 2.5.4 in production. I
>>>> recognize that more experienced production houses tend to run off
>>>> the
>>>> maintenance branch but over time I expect this to become the
>>>> exception rather than the rule given the number of smaller
>>>> institutions that run (and will run) point releases of Sakai.
>>>>
>>>> From my perspective, I think consistency in our versioning
>>>> practices
>>>> is important and I believe the "Maven" practice first adopted by
>>>> Ian
>>>> works well.
>>>>
>>>> trunk: [major.minor]-SNAPSHOT
>>>> release tag: [major.minor.revision]
>>>> 1.0.x branch [major.minor.revision]-SNAPSHOT
>>>>
>>>> This is an area were I believe it would be good to settle on a
>>>> general practice since there may be advantages to the community of
>>>> having a few other core projects adopt their own release cycles
>>>> independent of a general Sakai release. Our practices are a bit
>>>> inconsistent at present as a few examples will demonstrate:
>>>>
>>>> Examples:
>>>>
>>>> Sakai (after 2.6.0 release)
>>>> trunk: [major.minor.revision]-SNAPSHOT (e.g., currently 2.7.0-
>>>> SNAPSHOT, IMHO should simply be 2.7-SNAPSHOT)
>>>> tag: [major.minor.revision] (e.g. 2.6.0)
>>>> 2.6.x branch [major.minor.revision]-SNAPSHOT (e.g., 2.6.1-SNAPSHOT)
>>>>
>>>> K1 (after 1.0.4 release)
>>>> trunk: [major.minor]-SNAPSHOT (e.g., 1.1-SNAPSHOT)
>>>> release tag: [major.minor.revision] (e.g. 1.0.4)
>>>> 1.0.x branch [major.minor.revision]-SNAPSHOT (e.g., 1.0.5-SNAPSHOT)
>>>>
>>>> K2 (current)
>>>> trunk: [major.minor]-SNAPSHOT (e.g., 0.1-SNAPSHOT)
>>>> release tag: [major.minor.revision] (no tag yet)
>>>> branch [major.minor.revision]-SNAPSHOT (no branch yet)
>>>>
>>>> SiteStates (current)
>>>> trunk: [major.minor]-SNAPSHOT (e.g., 2.0-SNAPSHOT)
>>>> release tag: [major.minor.revision] (e.g., 1.2.1)
>>>> branch (no 2.6 branch yet; I assume this would be 1.2.2-SNAPSHOT)
>>>>
>>>> EntityBroker (current)
>>>> trunk: [major.minor.revision]-SNAPSHOT (e.g., 1.3.7-SNAPSHOT,
>>>> IHMO
>>>> should simply be 1.3-SNAPSHOT)
>>>> release tag: [major.minor.revision] (e.g., 1.3.6)
>>>> 2.6.x branch [major.minor.revision]-SNAPSHOT (currently, 1.3.6-
>>>> SNAPSHOT, IHMO should be 1.3.7-SNAPSHOT)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Anth
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 26, 2009, at 12:20 PM, Steve Swinsburg wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My only worry with this is is that the number will change, rather
>>>>> than be stable like the 2.5.x series of M2. So then someone
>>>>> doing a
>>>>> simple SVN update of just one module perhaps will get an updated
>>>>> POM which doesn't match the rest of their dependencies.
>>>>>
>>>>> My feeling is that the branch version number should be more stable
>>>>> since we advise people to run it in production?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm,
>>>>> Steve
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 26 Mar 2009, at 16:13, Anthony Whyte wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Currently, 2.6.x poms have a version of 2.6.0RC1-SNAPSHOT (it
>>>>>> really should have just been 2.6.0-SNAPSHOT). Steve has enquired
>>>>>> what the <version> for the *x branch will be after the release of
>>>>>> 2.6.0 (the release to occur from a 2.6.0 branch that I will
>>>>>> create
>>>>>> when we do the first RC tag).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My recommendation is: 2.6.1-SNAPSHOT, the revision number to be
>>>>>> incremented by +1 whenever we do a maintenance release (e.g.
>>>>>> 2.6.2-
>>>>>> SNAPSHOT, etc.).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any objections?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anthony
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> sakai-dev mailing list
>>>> sakai-dev at collab.sakaiproject.org
>>>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai-dev
>>>>
>>>> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to sakai-dev-unsubscribe at collab.sakaiproject.org
>>>> with a subject of "unsubscribe"
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Aaron Zeckoski (aaronz at vt.edu)
>>> Senior Research Engineer - CARET - Cambridge University
>>> [http://bugs.sakaiproject.org/confluence/display/~aaronz/]
>>> Sakai Fellow - [http://aaronz-sakai.blogspot.com/]
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sakai-dev mailing list
>> sakai-dev at collab.sakaiproject.org
>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/sakai-dev
>>
>> TO UNSUBSCRIBE: send email to sakai-dev-unsubscribe at collab.sakaiproject.org
>> with a subject of "unsubscribe"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://collab.sakaiproject.org/pipermail/sakai-dev/attachments/20090327/56697064/attachment.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2437 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://collab.sakaiproject.org/pipermail/sakai-dev/attachments/20090327/56697064/attachment.bin
More information about the sakai-dev
mailing list