commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Scott Sanders" <ssand...@nextance.com>
Subject RE: digester 2.0 [WAS Re: [digester] [PROPOSAL] More pattern matching flexibility]
Date Thu, 05 Sep 2002 19:07:06 GMT
Or, instead of a branch, do a proposal under digester.  That way
multiple ideas can be hashed out quite easily.

Scott

I have lots of ideas for Digester 2.0 as well, but I am not sure they
look like Digester 1.  So, I know I will need a different proposal
directory.

Scott

> -----Original Message-----
> From: robert burrell donkin 
> [mailto:robertburrelldonkin@blueyonder.co.uk] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 10:48 AM
> To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: digester 2.0 [WAS Re: [digester] [PROPOSAL] More 
> pattern matching flexibility]
> 
> 
> On Thursday, September 5, 2002, at 08:23 AM, Christopher Lenz wrote:
> 
> > robert burrell donkin wrote:
> >> i'm pretty happy with the way that this is heading but 
> maybe it'd be
> >> easier for more people to review these changes and suggest 
> improvements 
> >> if we had them in cvs. maybe a branch is the right way to 
> go forward. 
> >> (we can merge back once everyone's happy with the changes.)
> >> comments?
> >
> > Branching would be a good idea... just to clarify: you'd create a 
> > branch
> > where big changes (like my patch) would go, while smaller 
> changes and 
> > bugfixing continues in HEAD? I thought the usual approach 
> was the other 
> > way around, where you'd create a branch for maintainence (say 
> > DIGESTER_1_BRANCH), and let the big changes happen in HEAD. 
> At least that'
> > s how it works in Tomcat, Slide and Struts.
> 
> this would be a small branch not a big branch :)
> 
> scott and craig are probably going to be busy for a while (at 
> least the 
> tomcat release is over). i'd really prefer it if they were 
> able to take a 
> look at the proposals before we make a definite decision 
> about 2.0. on the 
> other hand, i don't want to stop the proposal being developed.
> 
> so, the branch would be for developing a possible future digester 2.0 
> (without making an absolute decision yet) rather than back 
> branching a 
> maintenance version.
> 
> - robert
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> <mailto:commons-dev-> unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> For 
> additional commands, 
> e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
> 
> 

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message