proxool-developer

Re: [Proxool-developer] CGLIB 2

[Christian N. <chr...@em...>]

Is this really neccecary?

I can hold my DataSource checkins until after the CGLIB 2 related release.

Why dont we just aim for this sequence of releases in HEAD:

0.8.3 - bugfix
0.8.4 - CGLIB 2
0.9   - DataSource (++?)

I'm negative to a branch (and certanly to two) for a couple fof reasons:
1) We will have to make our branch from the v0-8-2 tag. This is confusing. Normal procedure would have been to create a bugfix branch on the v0-8 release.

2) Branching in general leads to confusion. People tend to forget wich branch they work in, forget to merge etc. etc.


We will need a branch if you need to checkin unfinished CGLIB 2 stuff before the 0.8.3 release.

If so I suggest we use the following procedure.

Create a "v0-8-2-PATCH" branch based on the v0-8-2 release:
cvs rtag -b -r v0-8-2 v0-8-2-PATCH proxool

All fixes aimed for v0-8-3 will be checked into this branch, and v0-8-3 will be tagged and released from it.
When we have finished in the branch (probably after 0.8.3) we'll need to merge in to HEAD. This is a two step process:

1) Tag the merge point:
cvs -q rtag -F -r v0-8-2-PATCH v0-8-2-PATCH-MERGED proxool 

2) Merge in from the "v0-8-2-PATCH" branch to HEAD:
cvs update -d -j v0-8-2-PATCH

We don't need a separate branch for the CGLIB stuff if I hold my DataSource checkins right? Alternatively I can keep it in the sandbox.

CHR


----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Horsman <bi...@lo...>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 14:32:32 +0000
To: Proxool Developer List <pro...@li...>
Subject: [Proxool-developer] CGLIB 2

> Hi,
> 
> Chris Nokleberg from the cglib project has kindly written a patch to get
> Proxool working with the new, faster Enhancer and the latest version of
> cglib (we use cglib for proxy support).
> 
> Cglib 2 is binary incompatible with cglib 1 so they have changed the
> package structure slightly. The upshot of which is that the Hibernate
> project (recently part of the JBoss project) wants to use cglib 2 in its
> next release. They don't particularly want to ship both cglib 1 and 2 so
> they have asked us to produce a release for cglib 2.
> 
> I don't know exactly when this will all happen. Sometime in the next few
> weeks cglib 2 will be released. And then sometime after that Hibernate
> will be released. I would like to make a release of Proxool inbetween
> those two events so that Hibernate can ship the latest Proxool.
> 
> I feel we will also be releasing 0.8.3 sometime soon and 0.9.0 (with
> DataSource support) is on the horizon (Christian has taken a look at
> this). I don't want to mess up our release schedule with other events
> beyond our control, so I think we need to do some clever branching.
> 
> I propose a branch for 0.8.3 that is a bug fix branch. We can work on
> the DataSource code in the head branch. And another branch for cglib 2
> (probably based on 0.8.3) Damn, I think we need a picture here.
> 
> Any comments?
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
> Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive?  Does it
> help you create better code?   SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help
> YOU!  Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/
> _______________________________________________
> Proxool-developer mailing list
> Pro...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/proxool-developer

-- 
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search
http://corp.mail.com/careers

Re: [Proxool-developer] CGLIB 2

[Christian N. <chr...@em...>]

Soooo....

Lets aim for this optimal seqence of releases (all from HEAD):

0.8.2 - Bugfix
0.8.3 - CGLIB 2
0.9   - DataSource (++?)

I'll keep the DataSource stuff locally until after 0.8.3.

If the CGLIB 2 stuff proves to be a blocker for 0.9 we will review the problem. Aiight?


CHR

----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Horsman <bi...@lo...>
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 09:54:54 +0000
To: Christian Nedregaard <chr...@em...>
Subject: Re: [Proxool-developer] CGLIB 2

> > Why dont we just aim for this sequence of releases in HEAD:
> > 
> > 0.8.3 - bugfix
> > 0.8.4 - CGLIB 2
> > 0.9   - DataSource (++?)
> 
> First of all, I made a mistake. The bug fix release will be 0.8.2.
> 
> The only reason I hesitate about releasing 0.8.4 (er, I mean 0.8.3)
> before 0.9.0 is it means we can't release our DataSource code until
> cglib2 is released. I don't like that loss of control. Let me talk to 
> Chris at cglib and see what he thinks about timing.
> 
> > 1) We will have to make our branch from the v0-8-2 tag. This is
> > confusing. Normal procedure would have been to create a bugfix branch
> > on the v0-8 release.
> 
> Er, we could still do that right? But it would then be very wise to
> merge in the bug fixes from 0.8.1/2. 
> 
> > 2) Branching in general leads to confusion. People tend to forget wich
> > branch they work in, forget to merge etc. etc.
> 
> Tell me about it. If we can avoid it, then fine.
> 
> > We will need a branch if you need to checkin unfinished CGLIB 2 stuff
> > before the 0.8.3 release.
> 
> That can be avoided. 0.8.3 (er, I mean 0.8.2) will definitely be before
> cglib2 is released. Probably.
> 
> [snip]
> > cvs rtag -b -r v0-8-2 v0-8-2-PATCH proxool
> [snip]
> > 1) Tag the merge point:
> > cvs -q rtag -F -r v0-8-2-PATCH v0-8-2-PATCH-MERGED proxool 
> > 
> > 2) Merge in from the "v0-8-2-PATCH" branch to HEAD:
> > cvs update -d -j v0-8-2-PATCH
> 
> Thanks for clarifying that. Merging scares me :)
> 
> > We don't need a separate branch for the CGLIB stuff if I hold my
> > DataSource checkins right? Alternatively I can keep it in the sandbox.
> 
> I think you might run into problems with keeping it in the sandbox.
> You'll need to reference it in ProxoolFacade, I would think. I can't
> think of a nice way round that.
> 
> Cheers,
> Bill
> 
> P.S. I'm very excited about the DataSource code :)
> 

-- 
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

CareerBuilder.com has over 400,000 jobs. Be smarter about your job search
http://corp.mail.com/careers

Re: [Proxool-developer] CGLIB 2

[Bill H. <bi...@lo...>]

After a lot of thought, here's the schedule I propose:

5-Nov:
0.8.2 is released
CGLIB-2 branch is created

7-Nov:
0.8.2-cglib-2-b1 is released (from CGLIB-2 branch but with patch for
cglib 2 and new Enhancer API)

20-Nov:
0.9.0 release process starts (beta, then release candidates)

27-Nov:
0.9.0 final

Note 1. Depending on release schedule of CGLIB 2 and feedback from the
Hibernate team the CGLIB-2 branch may or may not be included in 0.9.0.

Note 2. If Hibernate looks like it will release 2.1 final before 0.9.0
then we will release 0.8.3 in time to be included in their release. This
will include the cglib-2 patch, but not the DataSource stuff. 

Note 3. The reason why we are producing a beta release of Proxool with
cglib-2 support before cglib-2 is finally released is that Hibernate
want to include cglib-2 in their beta releases of 2.1. And Hibernate
have a dependency on Proxool (we are one of their bundled JDBC pools). 

Bill

Re: [Proxool-developer] CGLIB 2

[Bill H. <bi...@lo...>]

> Why dont we just aim for this sequence of releases in HEAD:
> 
> 0.8.3 - bugfix
> 0.8.4 - CGLIB 2
> 0.9   - DataSource (++?)

First of all, I made a mistake. The bug fix release will be 0.8.2.

The only reason I hesitate about releasing 0.8.4 (er, I mean 0.8.3)
before 0.9.0 is it means we can't release our DataSource code until
cglib2 is released. I don't like that loss of control. Let me talk to 
Chris at cglib and see what he thinks about timing.

> 1) We will have to make our branch from the v0-8-2 tag. This is
> confusing. Normal procedure would have been to create a bugfix branch
> on the v0-8 release.

Er, we could still do that right? But it would then be very wise to
merge in the bug fixes from 0.8.1/2. 

> 2) Branching in general leads to confusion. People tend to forget wich
> branch they work in, forget to merge etc. etc.

Tell me about it. If we can avoid it, then fine.

> We will need a branch if you need to checkin unfinished CGLIB 2 stuff
> before the 0.8.3 release.

That can be avoided. 0.8.3 (er, I mean 0.8.2) will definitely be before
cglib2 is released. Probably.

[snip]
> cvs rtag -b -r v0-8-2 v0-8-2-PATCH proxool
[snip]
> 1) Tag the merge point:
> cvs -q rtag -F -r v0-8-2-PATCH v0-8-2-PATCH-MERGED proxool 
> 
> 2) Merge in from the "v0-8-2-PATCH" branch to HEAD:
> cvs update -d -j v0-8-2-PATCH

Thanks for clarifying that. Merging scares me :)

> We don't need a separate branch for the CGLIB stuff if I hold my
> DataSource checkins right? Alternatively I can keep it in the sandbox.

I think you might run into problems with keeping it in the sandbox.
You'll need to reference it in ProxoolFacade, I would think. I can't
think of a nice way round that.

Cheers,
Bill

P.S. I'm very excited about the DataSource code :)