[jdom-interest] Preparing JDOM 1.1.2 ?

[Rolf]

Hi all.

I have set up the process/infrastructure for JDOM 1.1.2

I initially set up the github branches incorrectly. I used 'branch' 
structures to indicate previous JDOM releases, when I should have used 
plain tags. So, I have removed the branch called jdom-1.1.1 and instead 
created a tag called jdom-1.1.1 (I also moved it from the revision it 
was on to the actual revision used for jdom-1.1.1).

I have now created a branch jdom-1.x which will be used as the 
development branch for future pre-JDOM2 development/fixes.

The process for the above changes can be read up on at: 
https://github.com/hunterhacker/jdom/wiki/Source-Branches-and-JDOM2 
(see the update near the bottom...).

I have gone through the issues (open and closed) in github and I have 
'labelled' those issues I believe are good for backporting to jdom-1.1.2

If any new issues arise, or if anyone thinks there are issues on that 
list which should or should not be backported to 1.1.2 then please speak 
up. I intend to start working on the backport quite soon (it should be 
really quick and easy). The bigger problem is that I have not yet 
finished the junit testing, so there may be some more issues that arise. 
I expec that by the end of next week the junit testing will be 
sufficient for JDOM2 work.

Rolf

On 30/08/2011 6:15 PM, Jason Hunter wrote:
> On Aug 25, 2011, at 11:50 AM, Rolf Lear wrote:
>
>> Hi all
>>
>> Jason, the way I understand it is that we are intending a 1.1.2 release.
>> There are some issues in GitHub targeting that release.
>>
>> I think it is worth discussing some fixes for a JDOM 1.1.2 release.
>>
>> Currently the list of 1.1.2 Milestone issues is:
>> #1 Namespace for default attributes from XMLSchema
>> https://github.com/hunterhacker/jdom/issues/1
>> #3 Should have a build in Maven Central
>> https://github.com/hunterhacker/jdom/issues/3
>>
>>
>> I am unsure of how much priority should be put on 1.1.2 items. On the one
>> hand, I think that these issues are high priority, and should be addressed.
>> On the other hand, I find it hard to figure out where to draw the line.
>
> My general feeling is we should do a 1.1.2 with any bug fixes that are low-risk, don't introduce any compatibility issues, and will be coded up soon.
>
>> Also, the Maven issue is probably quite disruptive in terms of code
>> impact.... and, I feel it would be a lot of effort to 'mavenize' both 1.1.2
>> and 2.0... I see that issue (#3) as being a 2.0 milestone, not 1.1.2
>
> Why the code impact?  I wasn't suggesting we use Maven, just put builds out there so others who use Maven can fetch JDOM builds.  Looks like others have been doing this for us up til now:
>
> http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/jdom/jdom
>
>> There are some other issues already filed which could be part of 1.1.2,
>> but no-one has properly addressed. Things like
>> https://github.com/hunterhacker/jdom/issues/9 - BaseURI not output.
>>
>> Also, what I am finding is that as I go through adding JUnit tests I have
>> encountered a number of small issues. Each of them is trivial to fix (so
>> far, anyway), but, when taken together, there are enough to warrant a 1.1.2
>> release. Further, I am sure that there will be even more as I cover more of
>> the JDOM code. I have been itemizing these small issues in GitHub as I go
>> so that I can 'document' what has changed, but the same items can be used
>> to fix 1.1.2.
>>
>> I have been concentrating on the JDOM2 coverage, but, I think it would
>> make sense to also get a 1.1.2 branch going, and clearing up some of the
>> 1.1.2 issues.
>>
>> That is, assuming we are planning a 1.1.2 release.... we are, aren't we?
>
> It seems like a good idea, targeted to people who are conservative.
>
>>
>> I have inspected the branch on GitHub labeled as JDOM-1.1.1. There is one
>> difference between that branch, and the actual code released as 1.1.1, and
>> that is commit
>> https://github.com/hunterhacker/jdom/commit/ea30b1e2b614f4b7d49de8a95af71fe3fb52ae2b
>>
>> It seems to me that I can move the 1.1.1 branch back up one commit, and
>> then branch the 1.1.2 from where the 1.1.1 was. it seems simple in my head,
>> but I will have to research the best way to do it in my head.
>
> Cool.  Please when you're done add to the wiki how you did it, since it'll help all us git-noobs learn.  BTW, I have git-guru friends if we need to ask them.
>
>> Once we get a 1.1.2 branch going it should be easy for me to apply any
>> fixes to both 2.0 and 1.1.2 (if we agree that they should be back-ported to
>> 1.1.2).
>>
>> Anyway, the way I see it is that a 1.1.2 release should be 'planned' ( -
>> or completely dismissed and just roll things in to 2.0.0).
>
> I feel like there would be demand for a 1.1.2 that's basically a risk-free drop-in upgrade for people on 1.1.1 that includes some fixes.
>
> -jh-
>