[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
Re: [eclipselink-dev] [External] : EclipseLink 3.0 branch
|
>
> @Piotr Żygieło
>
> > The PR 985 reveals the commit that 3.0.0-RELEASE branch was pointing at (dd5cf6aad9). Perhaps this could be considered, as it has versions for development updated already
>
> I don't see a branch for "3.0.0-RELEASE"
> (https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/eclipselink/tree/3.0.0-RELEASE).
Because of this event:
https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/eclipselink/pull/985#event-4084747964
> Based on PR 985 (https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/eclipselink/pull/985,
> was "3.0.0-RELEASE" from Radek Felcman's fork?
No. This PR was not from a fork.
> Also, I don't think "dd5cf6aad9e06cd2ad4a140d380abb976be5964b" is the
> correct commit hash. Commit "3986bdbeae8e0e04e5be4a7076f2bda2ee1a09a5"
> matches the version.properties file in
> https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/org.eclipse.persistence/eclipselink/3.0.0
dd5cf6aad9 is NEXT commit, just after the release.
> It is interesting that the tag "3.0.0"
> (https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/eclipselink/releases/tag/3.0.0)
> appears to have its own commit
> "3986bdbeae8e0e04e5be4a7076f2bda2ee1a09a5". However, if you view the
> commit history for "master", you don't see this commit listed.
Because it was not merged to master.
> I had
> always thought tags were associated with OTHER commits and were not
> their own commit...
> but that may not be important.
Understanding this part of git might be important.
> What is important,
> in my opinion, is that the "version.properties" file for the
> EclipseLink 3.0.0 release lists tag 3.0.0's commit "3986bdb". That is
> what we should fork from, in my opinion.
And then you will have to update versions, from fixed, released 3.0.0
to something "next", like 3.0.1-SNAPSHOT. This work is already done in
dd5cf6aad9. That's why I propose, if you choose to branch off 3986bdb,
do it from dd5cf6aad9 instead.
Piotrek
