[Classpathx-javamail] CVS tag structure - question - new tags proposed

[Conrad T. Pino]

Sample "cvs status -v README NEWS" output is below.

The presence of "release-1-0" as a branch tag seems appropriate.

However the "release_1_1..." series tags are inverted, specifically
I expected "release_1_1" to be a branch tag and "release_1_1_1" and
"release_1_1_2" to both be revision tags.

This inverted structure seems helpful only if releases such as

GNU JavaMail 1.1.1 becomes
GNU JavaMail 1.1.1.1
GNU JavaMail 1.1.1.2

GNU JavaMail 1.1.2 becomes
GNU JavaMail 1.1.2.1
GNU JavaMail 1.1.2.2

are forth coming whereas the actual release progression seems
to have been:

GNU JavaMail 1.0
GNU JavaMail 1.1.1
GNU JavaMail 1.1.2

and the next release would likely be one of the following:

GNU JavaMail 1.1.3
GNU JavaMail 1.2
GNU JavaMail 1.2.0

What is the rationale behind the inverted tag structure?

Since CVS tags are cheap I propose leaving existing CVS tags
undisturbed and adding these:

release-1-0-0 (revision tag for 1.0 release)

release-1-1 (branch tag for 1.1 release series)
release-1-1-1 (revision tag for 1.1.1 release)
release-1-1-2 (revision tag for 1.1.2 release)

Best regards,

Conrad Pino
===================================================================
File: README Status: Up-to-date

Working revision: 1.2
Repository revision: 1.2 /sources/classpathx/mail/README,v
Commit Identifier: (none)
Sticky Tag: release_1_1_2 (branch: 1.2.6)
Sticky Date: (none)
Sticky Options: (none)

Existing Tags:
release_1_1_2 (branch: 1.2.6)
release_1_1_1 (branch: 1.2.4)
release_1_1 (revision: 1.2)
release-1-0 (branch: 1.2.2)

===================================================================
File: NEWS Status: Up-to-date

Working revision: 1.1
Repository revision: 1.1 /sources/classpathx/mail/NEWS,v
Commit Identifier: (none)
Sticky Tag: release_1_1_2 (branch: 1.1.6)
Sticky Date: (none)
Sticky Options: (none)

Existing Tags:
release_1_1_2 (branch: 1.1.6)
release_1_1_1 (branch: 1.1.4)
release_1_1 (revision: 1.1)
release-1-0 (branch: 1.1.2)

[Chris Burdess]

Post by Conrad T. Pino
What is the rationale behind the inverted tag structure?

There isn't one really. We don't do development on the branches so the
tags are just there as markers to retrieve a given release.

Post by Conrad T. Pino
Since CVS tags are cheap I propose leaving existing CVS tags
release-1-0-0 (revision tag for 1.0 release)
release-1-1 (branch tag for 1.1 release series)
release-1-1-1 (revision tag for 1.1.1 release)
release-1-1-2 (revision tag for 1.1.2 release)

Sounds fine.

[Conrad T. Pino]

Hi Chris,

Post by Chris Burdess

Post by Conrad T. Pino
What is the rationale behind the inverted tag structure?

There isn't one really. We don't do development on the branches so the
tags are just there as markers to retrieve a given release.

After starting this thread I downloaded every released tar and audited
the entire release history against existing CVS tags finding some gaps
and evidence indicating releases weren't always based on CVS tags as I
have seen practiced elsewhere. I'll document more after finishing the
study.

Post by Chris Burdess

Post by Conrad T. Pino
Since CVS tags are cheap I propose leaving existing CVS tags
release-1-0-0 (revision tag for 1.0 release)
release-1-1 (branch tag for 1.1 release series)
release-1-1-1 (revision tag for 1.1.1 release)
release-1-1-2 (revision tag for 1.1.2 release)

Sounds fine.

Thank you. This part is in progress.

Conrad