Details

    • Task
    • Status: Closed
    • Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • 2.2.0, 2.3.0, 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 3.0.0, Trunk
    • 2.3.2
    • None
    • None

    Description

      Review projects in subversion and reorganise.

      Attachments

        1. build_2_3_1-v2.3.diff
          33 kB
          Robert Burrell Donkin
        2. next-minor_build_2_3_1.diff
          1.03 MB
          Robert Burrell Donkin
        3. next-minor_v2.3.diff
          1.05 MB
          Robert Burrell Donkin

        Activity

          robertburrelldonkin Robert Burrell Donkin added a comment - in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/server/branches/ there is http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/server/branches/next-minor/ http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/server/branches/v2.3/ (which are 2.x server branches) and http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/server/branches/old/ which has: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/server/branches/old/branch_2_1_fcs/ http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/server/branches/old/imap-dev/ http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/server/branches/old/java_apache/ http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/server/branches/old/v2-0a2candidate1/ http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/server/branches/old/v2-1-pop3file/

          I think a good start would be to move inactive branches out from http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/server/branches/ so it's easy for developers to understands what's active.

          So, i'd like to see http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/server/branches/old/ moved up to http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/server/branches/ perhaps with a different name (legacy? inactive? not sure)

          robertburrelldonkin Robert Burrell Donkin added a comment - I think a good start would be to move inactive branches out from http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/server/branches/ so it's easy for developers to understands what's active. So, i'd like to see http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/server/branches/old/ moved up to http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/server/branches/ perhaps with a different name (legacy? inactive? not sure)

          Given the number of active developers on 2.x, I think consolidating to one active branch for fixes would be best. I've attached some diffs between the various branches and the last release. I'll try to summarise the changes but please feel free to jump in with corrections or explanations.

          next-minor verses v2.3

          v2.3 has upgraded dependencies and a lot of fixed license headers. The code differences look minor and bug fix-ish.

          next-minor verses 2.3.1, v2.3

          2.3 looks closer to 2.3 than to next minor

          robertburrelldonkin Robert Burrell Donkin added a comment - Given the number of active developers on 2.x, I think consolidating to one active branch for fixes would be best. I've attached some diffs between the various branches and the last release. I'll try to summarise the changes but please feel free to jump in with corrections or explanations. next-minor verses v2.3 v2.3 has upgraded dependencies and a lot of fixed license headers. The code differences look minor and bug fix-ish. next-minor verses 2.3.1, v2.3 2.3 looks closer to 2.3 than to next minor

          Here's the log for next-minor:

          $ svn log --stop-on-copy http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/server/branches/next-minor/
          ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          r493999 | norman | 2007-01-08 09:43:28 +0000 (Mon, 08 Jan 2007) | 1 line

          Rename v2.3 branch to next-minor
          ------------------------------------------------------------------------

          (the one for v2.3 is much longer)

          robertburrelldonkin Robert Burrell Donkin added a comment - Here's the log for next-minor: $ svn log --stop-on-copy http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/server/branches/next-minor/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ r493999 | norman | 2007-01-08 09:43:28 +0000 (Mon, 08 Jan 2007) | 1 line Rename v2.3 branch to next-minor ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (the one for v2.3 is much longer)
          robertburrelldonkin Robert Burrell Donkin added a comment - - edited

          Doesn't look like next-minor is useful any more

          Should we just delete it?

          robertburrelldonkin Robert Burrell Donkin added a comment - - edited Doesn't look like next-minor is useful any more Should we just delete it?

          next-minor was a branch created by norman for Noel (and other next-minor supporters). Noel never used it, so it can be safely removed.

          v2.3 is the current 2.3 branch that should be used if we'll ever make a 2.3.2

          the old folder has been created by me to better identify "dead" branches. Most of them was "tags", some are simply experiments. None of them will ever be needed to make a future release so I'd like to not have them in the main "branches". So I'm against moving them back to their original place

          Long ago we agreed that James should have at most 2 main code lines: trunk and stable-branch. They currently are trunk and branches/v2.3

          bago Stefano Bagnara added a comment - next-minor was a branch created by norman for Noel (and other next-minor supporters). Noel never used it, so it can be safely removed. v2.3 is the current 2.3 branch that should be used if we'll ever make a 2.3.2 the old folder has been created by me to better identify "dead" branches. Most of them was "tags", some are simply experiments. None of them will ever be needed to make a future release so I'd like to not have them in the main "branches". So I'm against moving them back to their original place Long ago we agreed that James should have at most 2 main code lines: trunk and stable-branch. They currently are trunk and branches/v2.3

          next-minor => DELETE
          v2.3 => "active" stable branch
          2.3.1 => is simply our release tag, not a branch.

          bago Stefano Bagnara added a comment - next-minor => DELETE v2.3 => "active" stable branch 2.3.1 => is simply our release tag, not a branch.

          +1 to delete next-minor

          robertburrelldonkin Robert Burrell Donkin added a comment - +1 to delete next-minor

          Is any value left in keeping the old branches around outweighed by the additional complexity?

          robertburrelldonkin Robert Burrell Donkin added a comment - Is any value left in keeping the old branches around outweighed by the additional complexity?

          my opinion on the possible "old branches" future:
          +1 delete old branches
          +1 leave them in old
          +0 move them back in main branches prefixing them with old/legacy
          -1 move them back in branches with the current name.

          bago Stefano Bagnara added a comment - my opinion on the possible "old branches" future: +1 delete old branches +1 leave them in old +0 move them back in main branches prefixing them with old/legacy -1 move them back in branches with the current name.

          for "old branches", i'm
          +1 delete old branches
          -0 leave them in place

          robertburrelldonkin Robert Burrell Donkin added a comment - for "old branches", i'm +1 delete old branches -0 leave them in place

          I plan to delete old and next-minor from branches. If anyone has any objections, please jump in.

          robertburrelldonkin Robert Burrell Donkin added a comment - I plan to delete old and next-minor from branches. If anyone has any objections, please jump in.

          Tidied up branches. v2.3 is the current stable release branch.

          robertburrelldonkin Robert Burrell Donkin added a comment - Tidied up branches. v2.3 is the current stable release branch.

          People

            robertburrelldonkin Robert Burrell Donkin
            robertburrelldonkin Robert Burrell Donkin
            Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            0 Start watching this issue

            Dates

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: