cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Carsten Ziegeler" <>
Subject RE: CVS repository changes... (and what's left to do)
Date Thu, 27 Feb 2003 10:40:37 GMT

Pier Fumagalli wrote:
> You have a _proposal_ in your hands... Now we can vote! :-)
Ok, can you please summarize it here as text? Then we can discuss(!)
- and not already vote.

> > I appreciate your work, BUT as even Stefano pointed out in the past,
> > it is IMHO not good to call the new cvs cocoon-2.0 rsp. cocoon-2.1
> > because this will lead to a new repository for each version, and this
> > is really not the best idea.
> Ehehmm... Why? You want to keep on branching? So that everytime
> you have to
> do a checkout, and update or anything you have to waste _minutes_ in
> processing old directories containing only Attic and 5 meg long files
> containing N versions of basically what are two different designs?
So what is your proposal then? We have 2.0 repository, a 2.1? And then
a 2.1.1 and a 2.1.2 and a 2.2 and ...? Sorry, but I really don't get this.
Will we create a new repo with every release?

> > I think we agreed to rename the xml-cocoon2 cvs to simply cocoon and
> > I don't see a point why we should make two repositories for 2.0 and 2.1.
> > Why are the branches not sufficient?
> I would suggest you reading the Subversion introduction, it
> explains all the
> design flaws of RCS/CVS and what Subversion is trying to do in that
> regard... Branches are not a constant-time operation... Emptying directory
> trees puts a heck of a lot of strain on the servers (you have to
> traverse it
> anyhow).. It works, but it's a hack...
> Sow... Subversion on the other hand... :-)
Subversion? We are currently using cvs, so it doesn't help me to read
something about subversion. And personally I don't care if it is a
constant-time operation or not. If the solution is fast but not intuitiv
it doesn't help me.

> > So, unfortunately you already renamed them...I think it's best to revert
> > your changes asap, then we as a community can decide about the new
> > layout and then rename/move whatever. Do you think that this is a good
> > approach?
> Have you tried working _exactly_ like yesterday? Did you notice any
> difference? What did your CVS client say? Any problem?
I even haven't tried because you wrote:
> Now, call me "fascist"  if you want, but to avoid people to commit back
> to the old repository names, I've removed YOU ALL karma to the old
> repositories...

>From my point of view this means I cannot commit to the old repos, so why
should I try it?

Again, I really don't get why we can't discuss this proposal via email.
If we would discuss a design we wouldn't implement it first and then
vote on it, wouldn't we?
So, sorry, perhaps I'm dumb but currently I'm totally confused.


View raw message