Build and Integration schedule -- skip weeks

[Xiomara Jayasena]

Joseph D. Darcy wrote:
> Xiomara Jayasena wrote:
>>
>> There is no really point in doing a promotion if nothing has 
>> changed.  Would a link for the skipped build to the previous build 
>> number suffice, instead?
>
> The appropriate state of the source code in the repositories should 
> also be tagged for both builds in this situation.
>
> Basically, places where people get the build from, source, binaries, 
> etc., should have a conceptual link from the skipped build to the 
> prior one.

In the long term the above could become quite confusing. 

I do not quite understand the need to skip build numbers or re-build.  I 
believe in the past RE has done neither, we just update whatever 
documents need to be updated.

I can see that publishing a calendar in advance and knowing what build 
number to target for, is very useful for gatekeepers, so if we must do 
one of the two options above then skipping numbers maybe the best 
alternative, from RE's perspective.

-Xiomara

>
> -Joe
>
>>
>> -Xiomara
>>
>>
>> Paul Hohensee wrote:
>>> Could also just build b60 to be identical to b59.  I.e., the only 
>>> difference
>>> between b59 and b60 bundles would be the build number.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> Joseph D. Darcy wrote:
>>>> Mark Reinhold wrote:
>>>>>> Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 08:20:13 -0700
>>>>>> From: xiomara.jayasena at sun.com
>>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>>  
>>>>>> I was under the impression that b60 was going to be the last 
>>>>>> build for
>>>>>> M3 and according to the Calendar here:
>>>>>> http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk7/calendar/
>>>>>> it shows that b60 is the last build for M3.  Are we saying that 
>>>>>> b59 is
>>>>>> now going to be the last build in M3 then?
>>>>>>     
>>>>>
>>>>> Build 60 is the last scheduled build for M3.  It's the showstopper 
>>>>> build.
>>>>> If we need it, we'll do it; if we don't, then we'll skip it.  I 
>>>>> suggest
>>>>> you leave 60 in the schedule until we make that decision.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we skip 60 then that does raise the question of whether what's now
>>>>> called 61 should be renamed to 60, and so forth for all following 
>>>>> builds.
>>>>> Personally I'd prefer to keep the present numbering and just 
>>>>> document the
>>>>> fact that we skipped 60.  I tend to view build numbers as part of the
>>>>> calendar.  If you don't do something on a particular day then that
>>>>> doesn't mean you remove the day from the calendar, it just means that
>>>>> you do it on some later day.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do others think?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   
>>>>
>>>> I'd prefer to renumber b61 to b60 is b60 is skipped.
>>>>
>>>> I think it is less confusing long term to have the build numbers be 
>>>> a dense consective sequence of integers.
>>>>
>>>> -Joe
>>>>
>